CASE DIGEST

G.R No. 2706

ACAIN vs. IAC

October 27, 1987

FACTS: 

            Constantino filed a petition for the probate of the will of the late Nemesio.  The
will provided that all his shares from properties he earned with his wife shall be given to
his brother Segundo (father of Constantino).  In case Segundo dies, all such property
shall be given to Segundo’s children.  Segundo pre-deceased Nemesio.

            The oppositors Virginia, a legally adopted daughter of the deceased, and the
latter's widow Rosa filed a motion to dismiss on the following grounds:

(1) the petitioner has no legal capacity to institute these proceedings;

(2) he is merely a universal heir and

(3) the widow and the adopted daughter have been preterited.

ISSUE:

      Was there preterition?

HELD: 

            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, though mentioned,
they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited.      Insofar as the
widow is concerned, Article 854 may not apply as she does not ascend or descend from
the testator, although she is a compulsory heir. Even if the surviving spouse is a
compulsory heir, there is no preterition even if she is omitted from the inheritance, for
she is not in the direct line.

            The same thing cannot be said of the other respondent Virginia, whose legal
adoption by the testator has not been questioned by petitioner. Adoption gives to the
adopted person the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the
adopter and makes the adopted person a legal heir of the adopter. It cannot be denied
that she was totally omitted and preterited in the will of the testator and that both
adopted child and the widow were deprived of at least their legitime. Neither can it be
denied that they were not expressly disinherited. This is a clear case of preterition of the
legally adopted child.

            Preterition annuls the institution of an heir and annulment throws open to
intestate succession the entire inheritance.  The only provisions which do not result in
intestacy are the legacies and devises made in the will for they should stand valid and
respected, except insofar as the legitimes are concerned.       

            The universal institution of petitioner together with his brothers and sisters to the
entire inheritance of the testator results in totally abrogating the will because the
nullification of such institution of universal heirs - without any other testamentary
disposition in the will - amounts to a declaration that nothing at all was written.

            In order that a person may be allowed to intervene in a probate proceeding he

must have an interest in the estate, or in the will, or in the property to be affected by it.  
Petitioner is not the appointed executor, neither a devisee or a legatee there being no
mention in the testamentary disposition of any gift of an individual item of personal or
real property he is called upon to receive.  At the outset, he appears to have an interest
in the will as an heir.  However, intestacy having resulted from the preterition of
respondent adopted child and the universal institution of heirs, petitioner is in effect not
an heir of the testator. He has no legal standing to petition for the probate of the will left
by the deceased.

Bellis vs Bellis
G.R. No. L-23678            June 6, 1967

Lessons Applicable: Divorce, Doctrine of Processual Presumption

Laws Applicable: Art. 16, 17 1039 NCC

Violet Kennedy (2nd wife) ß Amos G. Bellis --- Mary E. Mallen (1stwife)

Legitimate Children:                                      Legitimate Children:
Edward A. Bellis                                            Amos Bellis, Jr.                              
George Bellis (pre-deceased)                         Maria Cristina Bellis       
Henry A. Bellis                                              Miriam Palma Bellis
Alexander Bellis
Anna Bellis Allsman

FACTS:
Amos G. Bellis, a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States.
By his first wife, Mary E. Mallen, whom he divorced, he had 5 legitimate children:
Edward A. Bellis, George Bellis (who pre-deceased him in infancy), Henry A. Bellis,
Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis Allsman
By his second wife, Violet Kennedy, who survived him, he had 3 legitimate children:
Edwin G. Bellis, Walter S. Bellis and Dorothy Bellis; and finally, he had three illegitimate
children: Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis
August 5, 1952: Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines dividing his estate as
follows:
1.    $240,000.00 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen
2.    P40,000.00 each to his 3 illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis,
Miriam Palma Bellis
3.    remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his first and second wives
July 8, 1958: Amos G. Bellis died a resident of Texas, U.S.A
September 15, 1958: his will was admitted to probate in the CFI of Manila on
People's Bank and Trust Company as executor of the will did as the will directed
Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis filed their respective oppositions on the
ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children
Probate Court: Relying upon Art. 16 of the Civil Code, it applied the national law of the
decedent, which in this case is Texas law, which did not provide for legitimes.
ISSUE: W/N Texas laws or national law of Amos should govern the intrinsic validity of
the will

HELD: YES. Order of the probate court is hereby affirmed

Doctrine of Processual Presumption:
The foreign law, whenever applicable, should be proved by the proponent thereof,
otherwise, such law shall be presumed to be exactly the same as the law of the forum.
In the absence of proof as to the conflict of law rule of Texas, it should not be presumed
different from ours.  Apply Philippine laws.
Article 16, par. 2, and Art. 1039 of the Civil Code, render applicable the national law of
the decedent, in intestate or testamentary successions, with regard to four items: (a) the
order of succession; (b) the amount of successional rights; (e) the intrinsic validity of the
provisions of the will; and (d) the capacity to succeed. They provide that —
ART. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country
where it is situated.
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of
succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of
testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration, whatever may he the nature of the property and
regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.
ART. 1039. Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent.
The parties admit that the decedent, Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the State of Texas,
U.S.A., and that under the laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimes.
Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the amount of
successional rights are to be determined under Texas law, the Philippine law on
legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis.

G.R. No. L-39247 June 27, 1975

     Laws Applicable: Art. 792, Art. 179[1], Art. 1041, Art. 1060[1], Art.  750 and 752  Civil
                              Code
 
     Lessons Applicable: illegal provision in a will, donation, preterition of surviving
spouse

FACTS:
Leodegaria Julian, a native of Sta. Maria, Ilocos Sur, died on February 12, 1973 in
Davao City at the age of 67. She was survived by her husband, Felix Balanay, Sr., and
6 legitimate children: Felix Balanay, Jr., Avelina B. Antonio, Beatriz B. Solamo, Carolina
B. Manguiob, Delia B. Lanaban and Emilia B. Pabaonon
Felix J. Balanay, Jr. filed in the lower court for the probate of his mother's notarial will
dated September 5, 1970 which is written in English where Leodegaria Julian declared
(a) she was the owner of the "southern half of 9 conjugal lots (b) she was the absolute
owner of 2 parcels of land which she inherited from her father (c) it was her desire that
her properties should NOT be divided among her heirs during her husband's lifetime
and that their legitimes should be satisfied out of the fruits of her properties (d) after her
husband's death (age of 82 in 1973) her paraphernal lands and all the conjugal lands
should be divided and distributed in the manner set forth in that part of her will. She
devised and partitioned the conjugal lands as if they were all owned by her.
Although initially opposing, Felix Balanay, Sr. signed a Conformation of Division and
Renunciation of Hereditary Rights manifesting that out of respect for his wife's will he
waived and renounced his hereditary rights in her estate in favor of their 6 children.   In
that same instrument he confirmed the agreement, which he and his wife had perfected
before her death, that their conjugal properties would be partitioned in the manner
indicated in her will.
Avelina B. Antonio, an oppositor, in her rejoinder contended that the affidavit and
conformation" of Felix Balanay, Sr. were void for illegally claiming the conjugal lands
David O. Montaña, Sr., claiming to be the lawyer of Felix Balanay, Jr., Beatriz B.
Solamo, Carolina B. Manguiob and Emilia B. Pabaonon filed a motion for leave of court
to withdraw probate of the will and requesting authority to proceed by intestate estate
proceeding also referring to the provisions relating to the conjugal assets as
compromising the future legitimes
Lower Court: Will was void and converted to intestate proceedings
Felix Balanay, Jr., through a new counsel, Roberto M. Sarenas, asked for the
reconsideration of the lower court's order on the ground that Atty. Montaña had NO
authority to withdraw the petition for the allowance of the will
Lower Court on motion for reconsideration: Denied and clarified that it declared the will
void on the basis of its own independent assessment of its provisions and not because
of Atty. Montaña's arguments.

ISSUE: W/N the will should be void and interstate proceeding should follow

HELD: NO.
illegal declaration does NOT nullify the entire will and may be disregarded
Felix Balanay, Sr. could validly renounce his hereditary rights and his one-half share of
the conjugal partnership but insofar as it partakes of a donation, it should be subject to
the limitations prescribed in articles 750 and 752 of the Civil Code. A portion of the
estate should be adjudicated to the widower for his support and maintenance. Or at
least his legitime should be respected.
The will is intrinsically valid and the partition therein may be given effect if it does not
prejudice the creditors and impair the legitimes. The distribution and partition would
become effective upon the death of Felix Balanay, Sr.  In the meantime, the net income
should be equitably divided among the children and the surviving spouse.
The preterition of surviving spouse did not produce intestacy. Moreover, he signified his
conformity to his wife's will and renounced his hereditary rights.
Miciano vs. Brimo
G.R. No. L-22595, November 1, 1927 – Krist
 
Facts:
The judicial administrator of the estate of the deceased, Joseph Brimo, filed a scheme
of partition. However, one of the brothers of the deceased opposed the said partition.
According to the scheme and its provision, that the deceased requests that all his
relatives respect his wishes, otherwise those who opposed the same shall be cancelled
in said disposition in favor of the oppositor.
The apellant in the case, who opposed the same, based his opposition on the fact that
the deceased was a Turkish citizen, that his disposition should be in accordance with
the laws of his nationality.
 
Issue:
WON the disposition shall be made in accordance with Philippine Laws
WON there shall be cancellation of disposition/s in favor of the appellant-oppositor
 
Held:
No, although the disposition provides an express provision that it shall be governed by
Philippine Laws and those who opposed the condition of the provisions given shall be
cancelled from the disposition, the fact is that the condition itself is void for being
contrary to law. Article 792 of the Civil Code provides:
“Impossible conditions and those contrary to law or good morals shall be considered as
not imposed and shall not prejudice the heir or legatee in any manner whatsoever, even
should the testator otherwise provide.”
 
It is contrary to law because it expressly ignores the decedent’s national law, according
to Article 10 of the Civil Code, such national law shall govern his testamentary
dispositions.
Therefore, the institution of the legatees are unconditional and are valid, as well as
those favorable to herein appellant-oppositor.