administration be issued to her.
Felix and Paz
101.Caniza v. CA, GR 110427, Feb. 24, 1997,
268 SCRA 640
Facts: Carmen Cañiza was declared
incompetent because of her advanced age,
so her niece, Amparo Evangelista, was
appointed her legal guardian. Pursuant to
her authority, Amparo commenced an
ejectment suit against Spouses Estrada who were
occupying a house belonging to Carmen. The
Spouses argued that they have been occupying
the house in consideration of their faithful
service to Carmen, and that, in fact, Carmen had
already executed a will bequeathing to them the
disputed property. When the case reached the CA,
it ruled in favor of the Spouses, holding that
though not yet probated, the will was
indicative of intent and desire on Carmen’s
part that the Spouses were to remain and
continue in their occupancy and possession, so
much so that Carmen’s s u p e r v e n in g
incompetency cannot be said to have
vested in Amparo, her guardian, the
right/authority to drive them out.
Issue: Whether or not the holographic will,
though not yet probated, vested title to the
Spouses Estrada.
Ruling: No. A will is essentially ambulatory; at any
time prior to the testator's death, it may be changed
or revoked; and until admitted to probate, it
has no effect whatever and no right can be
claimed thereunder, the law being quite explicit.
No will shall pass either real or personal
property unless it is proved and allowed in
accordance with the Rules of Court. An owner's
intention to confer title in the future to persons
possessing property by his tolerance, is not
inconsistent with the former's taking back
possession in the meantime for any reason deemed
sufficient. In this case, that there was sufficient
cause for the owner's resumption of
possession is apparent: she needed to generate
income from the house on account of the
physical infirmities afflicting her, arising from her
extreme age.
102. Nuguid v. Nuguid, GR L-23445, June
23, 1966, 17 SCRA 449
Facts: Rosario died without descendants, legitimate
or illegitimate. Surviving her were her legitimate
parents – Felix and Paz, and 6 brothers and sisters.
Remedios, one of the sister filed in court a
holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario
instituting the former as the sole, universal heir of
all her properties. She prayed that said will be
admitted to probate and that letter of
opposed to the probate of the will on the ground
that by the institution of Remedios as universal heir
of the deceased, oppositors – who are compulsory
heirs in the direct ascending line – were illegally
preterited and that in consequence, the institution
is void. Article 854 provides that preterition of one,
some or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line,
whether living at the time of the execution of the
will or born after the death of the testator, shall
annul the institution of heir. Petitioners contention
is that the present is a case of ineffective
disinheritance rather than one of preterition
drawing the conclusion that Article 854 does not
apply in the case at bar.
Issue: WON the institution of one of the sister of the
deceased as the sole, universal heir preterited the
compulsory heirs.
Held: Yes. Where the deceased left no descendants,
legitimate or illegitimate, but she left forced heirs in
the direct ascending line – her parents, and her
holographic will does not explicitly disinherit them
but simply omits their names altogether, the case is
one of preterition of the parents, not a case of
ineffective disinheritance.
Preterition “consists in the omission in the testator’s
will of the forced heirs or anyone of them, either
because they are not mentioned therein, or,
through mentioned, they are neither instituted as
heirs nor are expressly disinherited”. Disinheritance,
in turn, “is a testamentary disposition depriving any
compulsory heir of his share in the legitime for a
cause authorized by law”. Where the one sentence
will institute the petitioner as the sole, universal heir
and preterits the parents of the testatrix, and it
contains no specific legacies or bequests, such
universal institution of petitioner, by itself, is void.
And intestate succession ensues.
In a proceeding for the probate of a will, the courts
area of inquiry is limited to an examination of, and
resolution on, the extrinsic validity of the will, the
due execution thereof, the testator’s testamentary
capacity and the compliance with the requisites or
solemnities prescribed by law. The intrinsic validity
of the will normally come only after the court has
declared that the will has been duly authenticated.
However, where practical considerations demand
that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon,
even before it is probated, the Court should meet
that issue.