Lorenzo v Posadas

- Thomas Hanley left a will and considerate amount of real and personal properties to Matthew
Hanley, his nephew. The court then appointed a trustee to administer the real properties which,
under the will, were to pass to Matthew 10 years after 2 executors named in the will. During the
incumbency of Pablo as trustee, the CIR valued the estate at 27,920 and personally valued at
1,465, allowing a deduction 480.81, with inheritance tax amounting to 1,434.24, with penalties
and surcharges, bring the total to 2,052.74. The CIR filed a motion in the testamentary
proceedings, praying that Pablo must pay the tax.

Issue:

Should the inheritance tax be computed on the basis of the value of the estate at the time of the
testator’s death, or its value 10 years later?

Held:

The inheritance tax should be computed on the basis of the value of the estate at the time of the
testator’s death. Whatever may be the time when actual transmission of inheritance takes place,
succession takes place in any event at the moment of the decedent’s death.

In this case, Thomas Hanley left real properties valued at 27,920 and personal properties at 1,465. With
allowable deductions at 480.81 under sec. 1539 of the revised admin code, 28,904.19 is the net value of
the estate. The primary tax is imposed with the following rates:

- One per centum for the first 10,000

- Two per centum upon the amount by which the share exceeds 30,000, with 200 per centum.

CIR correctly computed the total amount at 1,434,24.

The primary tax then is added to the collectibles under sec. 1544 of revised admin code. add 1,465.31 as
the interest from the date of delinquency, which is march 10, 1924, until the date of protest, september
15, 1932. Adding both to the surcharge of 724.88 and 10 for the compromise sum, the total is 3,634.43.

Since 2,052.74 has been paid, the remaining amount due is 1,581.69. However, in CIR’s counterclaim,
the total is 390.42 higher than the amount demanded by the defendant. Therefore, plaintiff must only
pay 1,191.27.

Rabadilla vs CA

- The last will and testament of Aleja Belleza and Dr. Jorge Rabadilla was duly probated and
admitted in special proceedings. The entries are as follows:
o Lot no. 1392, covered by TCT no. RT-4002(10942), to be transferred to Dr. Jorge
Rabadilla, and if ever the latter shall die ahead, said property and rights shall be
inherited by the spouse and children of Dr. Jorge.
o Should Dr. Jorge die, his heir shall continue the obligation to give sugar yearly to Maria
Coscolluela.
o The obligation to give piculs of sugar shall continue until Maria Marlina dies and if such
conditions is not respected, Maria Coscolluela shall seize the lot and turn it over to near
Aleja’s near descendants and continue such obligation. Should both of their heirs sell,
 lease, or mortgage the lot, they must negotiate only between her sister and near
descendants.
- Dr. Jorge died in 1983, survived by his wife and children. Maria Coscolluela filed a complaint,
alleging that the defendant-heirs violated said conditions of the codicil and praying that the
court enforce the provisions of the codicil. Because of the complaint, the lot was mortgaged to
PNB and Republic Planters, due to disregard on the instruction to sell, lease, or mortgage to only
near descendants and sister of testatrix and the failure to deliver piculs of sugar to Maria, as
stated in the codicil.
- Feb. 26,1990 – heirs were declared in default.
March 28, 1990 – the order was lifted because Johnny filed his answer.
- The court ruled that the complaint is prematurely fled as there is no cause of action, since non-
performance may be attributed on the memorandum of agreement, the holder/owner of the lot
does not warrant the filing of the present complaint. The memorandum contains the following:
o 75 piculs of A sugar and 25 piculs of B sugar delivered during December of each year in
Azucar Sugar Central, as compliance to the annuity.
o For every crop year from 1985-1989, there was no compliance to the memorandum,
except on the partial delivery of 50,80 piculs of sugar for crop year 1988-1989.
- CA reversed the RTC decision, saying that the defendant’s non-compliance with the obligation
since 1985 deems the conveyance of the title from the estate of Dr. Jorge to the estate of Aleja.
Petitioner seeks to reverse the CA decision, leaning on par. 6 of the codicil and that the
testamentary institution of Dr. Jorge is modal institution within art. 882 of the new civil code.

Issue:

Was there a valid substitution?

Held:

Yes. Petitioner stresses that there is no substitution since the mentioned substituted heirs are not
definite, as they were referred as “near descendants”. SC ruled that such contentions are untenable
because under art. 776, inheritance includes all the property, rights, and obligations of a person, not
extinguished by his death. It is to say that any rights Dr. Jorge had by virtue of codici were transmitted to
his forced heirs, at the time of his death. And since obligations are not extinguished also by death, it is
likely transmitted to his compulsory heirs upon his death. The rule is that under succession, successional
rights are transmitted from the moment of death of decedent and compulsory heirs are called to
succeed by operation of law. the legitimate children and descendants, and the widow or widower, are
compulsory heirs.

In this case, Aleja devised the lot to Dr. Jorge, with the condition that the usufruct (piculs of sugar)
would be delivered to Maria every end of the year. When Dr. Jorge died, his compulsory heirs succeeded
the rights, title, and the obligation to deliver sugar. Such obligation corresponded to the right of Maria
over the usufruct, with the fulfillment being demanded through the present complaint. Therefore, Maria
has a cause of action against Johnny.

Locsin v CA
 - When Getulio Locsin died, his properties in Albay and Sorsogon were divided to his 3 children.
The partition are as follows:
o 700 hectares of coconut land for his daughter, Magdalena.
o 106 hectares of coconut land for Julian.
o More or less 40 hectares, 18 hectares of rice and residential land for his son, Mariano.
- Mariano Locsin executed a last will and testament, making his wife as the sole heir of all his
properties and after both of them dies, the properties shall revert to their respective sides of the
family. When Mariano died, his will was probated, appointing Catalina as the executrix of his
estate. Among her own and Mariano’s relatives, she was closest to her nephew, Atty. Lorayes
and her nieces. 9 years after his death, Catalina transferred the properties to Locsin’s nephews
and nieces.
- 4 years before her death, she made a will, ratifying and affirming the transfers she made in favor
of her husband’s and her own relatives. Since there was no oppositions as to the conveyance,
Atty. Lorayes proceeded to distribute.
- 6 years after her death, some of her Jaucian nephews filed an action to recover the properties
distributed to the Locsins, saying that the conveyances were inofficious, without consideration
and intended solely to circumvent the laws on succession. The court ruled in favor of Jaucian
nephews, except the heirs of Josefina and Eduardo Jaucian. The Locsins appeal to CA, who
affirmed the trial court decision.

Issue:

Do the nephews and nieces of Catalina can inherit the properties she disposed of for more than a
decade before her death?

Held:

No. The disposed properties do not form part of her hereditary estate. The rights to a person’s
succession are transmitted from the moment of death, and do not vest in his heirs until such time. The
property conveyed by Catalina to other persons form no longer part of her estate at the time of her
death to which the heirs may claim. If she died intestate, only the properties remaining in her estate at
the time of her death shall devolve to her legal heirs; and even if those transfers were treated as
donations, such right arising under certain circumstances to compel the reduction or revocation of a
decedent’s gifts inter vivos does not inure to the respondents since neither they nor the donees are
compulsory heirs.

There is no merit on the Jaucian nephews and nieces’ assumption of an intent to circumvent the law, in
violation of the private respondent’s rights to her succession. The respondents are not her compulsory
heirs and she did not pretend that she had any. Hence, no legitimes would be conceivably impaired by
any transfer of her property during her lifetime. All the respondents had is the expectancy that
restricted her freedom to dispose of her entire estate, subject to the limitation under art. 750.

Caneda v CA

- Mateo Caballero executed a last will and testament before 3 witnessses; Cipriano Labuca,
Gregorio Cabando, d Flaviano Toregosa. It was decleared that he was leaving by way of legacies
and devised his real and personal properties to those not related to him.
 - Only on may 29, 1980 was the probate able to hear his petition. Benoni Cabrera, one of the
legatees, sought his appointment as special administrator of the testator’s estate. Probate cour
granted his appointnment. The petitioners, claiming to be the nephews and nieces of testator,
filed a second petition, opposing the probate of testator’s will and Benoni’s appointment. When
Benoni died, William was appointed as special administrator. Petitioners objected to the
allowance of the testator’s will on the ground that on the alleged date of its execution, he was
already in poor state that he could not have possibly executed the same. Cipriano and Atty.
Manigos testified that Mateo was in good health when he executed the will in their presence.
- The probate court ruled that it is indeed the last will and testament of Mateo because Mateo
caused the filing of the original petition. Elevating matter to CA, the petitioners aver that the will
is void for its attestation clause is fatally defective since it failed to state that the instrumental
witnesses to the will witnessed the testator signing the will in their presence and that they also
signed the will and all the pages in the presence of the testator and of one another. Hence, this
appeal.

Issue:

Does the attestation clause of Mateo is in compliance with art. 805?

Held:

An attestation clause refers to that part of an ordinary will, wherein the attesting witnesses certify that
the instrument has been executed before them and to the manner of the execution the same. It is a
separate memorandum or record of the facts surrounding the conduct of execution and once signed by
the witnesses, it gives affirmation to the fact that compliance with the essential formalities required by
law are observed.

Under par. 3 of art. 805, such clause should state the following:

1. The number of pages used upon which the will is written;

2. That the testator signed, expressly caused another to sign the will and every page thereof in the
presence of the attesting witnesses and;
3. That the attesting witnesses witnessed the signing by the testator of the will and all its pages,
and that said witnesses also signed the will and every page thereof in the presence of the
testator and of one another.

In this case, the clause did not expressly state the circumstance that said witnesses subscribed their
respective signatures to the will in the presence of the testator and of each other. Such absence of that
statement required by law is a fatal defect or imperfection which must necessarily result in the
disallowance of the will that is here sought to be admitted to probate. The phrase “and he has signed
the same and every page thereof, on the spaces provided for his signature and on the left hand margin,”
refers to the testator only and not the instrumental witnesses as it is immediately preceded by the
words” as his last will and testament.” Also, “in the presence of the testator and in the presence of each
and all of us” refers only to the testator signing in the presence of the witnesses, since said phrase was
followed by the previous phrase.

Such defect cannot be characterize as merely involving the form of the will or language used which
would warrant the application of substantial compliance rule. Under art. 809, in the absence of bad
faith, forgery, or fraud, undue and improper pressure and influence, the defects and imperfections in
the form of attestation or in the language used shall not render the will invalid, if it not proved that the
will was in fact executed and attested in substantial compliance with all the requirements of art. 805.

Garcia v Lacuesta

- The will was written in Ilocano that contains the following attestation cause:
o The instrumental witnesses declare that the foregoing testament of Antero Mercado
was signed by him and also by the witnesses below his name, the attestation clause, and
on the left margin of the 3 pages.
o On page 3, the will is written in Ilocano dialect, which is spoken and understood by the
testator, bearing the corresponding number in letter composing of 3 pages and all of
which are signed in the presence of the testator and witnesses.
The witnesses are Numeriano Evangelista, Bibiana Illigible, and Rosenda Cortes.
- The will was signed by Atty. Javier, who wrote the name of Mercado, with the words “A ruego
del testator” below and Javier’s name. Mercado is alleged to have written a cross immediately
after his name. CA reversed the CFI decision, because the clause failed to:
1. Certify that the will was signed on all the left margins of the 3 pages and at the end
of the will by Atty. Javier, at the express request of the testator in the presence of
the testator and each and every one of the witnesses.
2. Certify that after the signing of Mercado’s name by Atty. Javier, at the former’s
request, has written a cross at the end of Mercado’s name and on the left margin of
the 3 pages of which the will consists and at the end thereof.
3. Certify that the 3 witnesses signed the will in all the pages and in the presence of
the testator and of each other.

Issue:

Is the attestation clause defective?

Held:

Yes. The clause failed to state that Mercado caused Atty. Javier to write his name under his express
instruction and the fact that there is a sufficient recital because what is considered is the signing of the
will by the testator in the presence of the witnesses, and by the latter in the presence of the testator
and of each other.

Taboada v Rosal

- Written in cebuana dialect, the petitioner attached the last will and testament of late Dorotea
Perez. It has 2 pages. First page contains the entire testamentary dispositions and at the bottom
page, the testatrix’s signature, and at the left margin, signatures of the 3 instrumental
witnesses. The 2nd page contains the attestation clause and the acknowledgment is signed at the
end of the attestation clause by the attesting witnesses and at the left margin is the Dorotea’s
signature.
- the trial court denied the probate of the Dorotea’s will for want of a formality in its execution.
Also, petitioner required to submit the names of the intestate heirs with their addresses so they
could be notified and intervene in the summary settlement of the estate.
 - Instead of complying on the order, Taboada filed a manifestation and/or motion ex parte,
praying that a 30-day period to deliberate steps to be taken as a result of the disallowance and
that the submission of the names of intestate heirs be held in abeyance. Taboada also filed a
motion for appointment of special administrator. All motions and manifestations were denied.
Hence, this appeal.

Issu:

Does art. 805 require that testatrix and the witnesses sign at the end of the will and in the presence
of the testatrix and of one another?

Held:

No. Petitioner avers that art. 805 does not make it a condition precedent or a matter of absolute
necessity for the extrinsic validity of the wig that the signatures of the subscribing witnesses must
also be located at the end of the wig after the signature of the testatrix. SC ruled that under art. 805,
the will must be subscribed at its end by the testator himself or by the testator’s name written by
another person in his presence, and by his express direction, attested and subscribed by 3 or more
credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.

In this case, the objects of attestation and of subscription were met when the instrumental
witnesses signed at the left margin of the sole page containing the testamentary dispositions,
especially when Vicente, one of the attesting witnesses, properly identified the will. There was no
question of fraud or substitution behind the questioned order. While the court noticed that the
clause failed to state the number of pages used in writing the will, it was not considered fatal since it
was easily identified that it is actually composed of 2 pages duly signed by the testatrix and her
instrumental witnesses.

Jaboneto v Gustilo

- Arcadio jarandilla ordered the will in question to be written, and calling Julio javellana, Aniceto
Jalbuena, and Isabelo Jena as witnesses. Isabelo was in a hurry so he did not witness Julio sign
the will. The will was denied because the attestation clause under art. 805 was not satisfied
regarding the signing of the will in the presence of the and testator and instrumental witnesses.

Issue:

Is such defect a fatal one to warrant the invalidity of the will?

Held:

No. the purpose of the statutory requirement that the witness sign in the presence of the testator is to
see that the testator may have ocular evidence of the identity of the instrument subscribed by the
witness and himself, and the generally accepted tests of presence are vision and mental apprehension.

In this case, jena was still in the room when he saw javellana move his hand and pen in the act of affixing
his signature to the will, taking into consideration the testimony of other witnesses, showing that
javellana did in fact there and then sign his name to the will. The fact that he was in a hurry is no
importance, since they had assembled in one room for that purpose, and at the moment when the
witness Javellana signed the will, he was actually present and in such position that he could see
everything by merely casting his eyes in the proper direction and without any obstruction to prevent
him from doing so.

Calde v CA

- This involves the will and testament and a codicil that contain thumbmarks of decedent. The will
was in Ilocano dialect that the decedent does not know. Also, he was mentally incapacitated to
execute two documents because of her advanced age, illness, and deafness, and the thumbmark
were procured through fraud and undue influence and lastly, the codicil was not executed in
accordance with law. the trial court allowed the decedent’s will and its codicil. CA reversed the
decision.

Issue:

Is the will and codicil invalid for not having subscribed and attested by the witnesses in the presence of
testator and of one another?

Held:

Yes. Under art. 805, every will must subscribe and attested by testator and the instrumental witnesses in
the presence of the testator and of one another. In this case, the signatures of the attesting witnesses in
both the will and codicil are written in blue ink, while others are in black. Nobody in the 6 instrumental
witnesses testified that two pens were used. In fact, two of petitioners testified that only 1pen was used
in signing the documents. The testimonial evidence of petitioner was override by the autoptic or real
evidence done by the court, for upon inspection, more than 1 pen was used by the signatories.

Abangan v Abangan

- The will of Ana Abangan consists of two pages, which the 1 st pages contain all of the
testamentary dispositions of the testatrix, duly signed at the bottom by Martin Montalban
(under the direction of testatrix) and by three witnesses. However, neither of both sheets were
signed on the left margin by the three witnesses, nor numbered by letters.

Issue:

Should the will be denied?

Held:

No. The requirement that each sheet of the will should also be signed on the left margin by the
witnesses in the presence of each other is to avoid the substitution of any of such sheets. In this case,
when the dispositions were only written on only one page and signed by both the testatrix and the three
witnesses.

The same requirement is also applied in the attestation clause. SC ruled that in the one accompanying
the will, the signature of the testatrix and of the three witnesses on the left margin and the numbering
of the pages of the sheet is not required by the statute.
The reason is that the attestation clause refers only to the witnesses and not the testator/testatrix, since
the latter does not attest, but executes the will. When an interpretation already given assures such ends,
any other interpretation that adds nothing but demands more requisites should be disregarded.

Icasiano v Icasiano

- The will consists of 5 pages, while most signed at the end of every page, Atty. Natividad’s
signature is not present on page 3, but the duplicate copy attached to the amended and
supplemental petition has all the signatures of all the instrumental witnesses on each page. Atty.
Natividad testified that he may have lifted 2 pages instead of 1 but affirmed that page 3 was
signed in his presence. Appellants aver that the signatures of the testatrix in the duplicate are
not genuine and even if the documents are genuine, they were executed through deceit
because the testatrix was under pressure to adopt the wishes of those in the disposition in her
last will and testament. Also, the variance in the blueness of the ink does not appear reliable.

Issue:

Does the will comply with the substantial requirements under art. 805?

Held:

Yes. Under art. 805, every will must be subscribed at the end by the testator himself or by the testator’s
name written by some other person in his presence, and by his express instruction, and attested and
subscribed by three or more credible witnesses on the presence of the testator and of one another.

Testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will
shall also sign at the left margin, except the last, and all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in
letters placed on the upper part of each page.

In this case, the court agreed with the trial court that the testatrix signed both the original and
duplicates of the will spontaneously in the presence of the three attesting witnesses, the notary public
who acknowledged the will and Atty. Samson, the one who prepared the documents. The attestation
clause was in the language known to and spoken to by the testatrix and the witnesses. The expert
witness, Mr. Logan, was contradicted by Martin Ramos on the matter of he quality of the signatures,
since the comparison of the signatures affixed in the original and in the duplicate are the same. There is
no evidence of undue influence or fraud because some heirs are more favored than others are proof of
neither. They are motivated to prevent prolonged litigation, which leads to partition a portion to non-
heirs and speculators. Fraud and undue influence exclude each other and their joining as grounds to
oppose probate shows absence of evidence against the validity of the will.

Lee v Tambago

- This is in violation of notarial law committed by Atty. Tambago, for notarizing a spurious last will
and testament. Complainant said that his father never contested such will and contains the
forged signatures of Noynay and Grajo, the witnesses to its execution. The will was executed
and acknowledged before the respondent on june 30, 1965. However, in the residence
certificate, the will was acknowledged on jan. 5, 1962 and the signature of the testator is not the
same as in the deed of donation. He also questioned the absence of notation of residence
 certificates of the witnesses and likewise, their signature were forged, as they were copied from
their voters’ affidavits.

Issue:

Is the will spurious, violating notarial law?

Held:

Yes. A notarial will must be subscribed and attested by the testator himself. Same requirements as
sated under art. 805, the will must be attested and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses
in the presence of the testator and of one another. Another requirement is that a will must be
acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the witnesses. In this case, the will was
only attested by 2 witnesses and there was the absence of a notation of the residence certificates of
both Noynay and Grajo in the acknowledgment and the notation of the testator’s old residence
certificate was a clear violation of the law.

Azuela v CA

- The will consists of 2 pages written in Filipino language. The witnesses to the will affixed their
signatures on the left-margin of both pages but not at the bottom of the attestation clause. The
probate petition adverted only to the petitioner and Irene Igsolo. This was opposed by Geralda
Castillo, claiming that the will is forged and the reason for its probate is to use it as a defense
against the series of cases filed by the oppositor. Also, she alleges that the will has not
substantially complied with the law since it was not attested and subscribed as required; that
the decedent’s signature does not appear on the second page and; was not properly
acknowledged.

Issue:

Is there compliance of the attestation clause?

Held:

No. under art. 805, the attestation clause shall state the number of pages used upon which the will was
written, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof, or caused some other
person to write his name, under his express direction, in the presence of the instrumental witnesses,
and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the
testator and of one another. Art. 806 states that every will must be acknowledged before a notary public
by the testator and the witnesses. The notary public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will, or
file another with the office of the Clerk of Court.

Lee v Tambago

- Tambago’s violation of making the necessary entries pertaining to the will makes the same
invalid. The absence of notation and no copy of the will in the archives division was filed violates
art. 806. 1st, the absence of the notation of the residence certificates of the notarial witnesses in
the acknowledgement cannot be disregarded for the notarial law is explicit on observing the
formalities of a will and those of notarization.
 - In the issuance of a residence certificate, it is important that the true and correct identity of the
person to whom it is issued and the payment of residence taxes must be established, by
showing an expired residence certificate, Tambago failed to observe the requirements under the
old notarial law and the residence tax act.

Ortega v Valmonte

- The omission of some relatives in the will and the conflict on the dates of execution and
acknowledgement does not affect its validity, because in proving there was fraud, in this case,
trickery in the institution his wife who is more than 50 years younger, such burden to prove is
vested to the one alleging it. In determining the capacity of the testator to make a will, he/she
must be of sound mind at the time of its execution and the burden to prove otherwise is on the
person opposing the probate of the will. The obligation of the person maintaining the validity of
the will must also prove that the testator made the same during a lucid interval.
- Art. 799 laid down the tests to determine if the testator is at of sound mind at the time of the
execution of the will. In this case, despite his age, he was able to identify the properties he
owns, extent of the shares, and their locations.

Guerrero v Bihis

- Felisa’s will include said disputed property, which became subject of a sale. The probate court
revoked the appointment of bella as its administratrix. Bella’s attempt to thwart the express
trust by saying she affixed her signature has no merit, for registration does not vest title. It is
only an evidence of issuance of the certificate of title.

Alvarado v Gaviola

- Art. 808 requires reading the will twice, in case the testator is blind, by one of the instrumental
witnesses, and by the notary before whom the will was acknowledged. In this case, it was the
testator’s lawyer who read aloud the will and codicil aloud in the presence of the testator,
instrumental witnesses, and the notary public. Also, it is not only that day that the will was
affirmed by Alvarado, since Atty. Rino went to testator’s residence precisely for the purpose of
securing his conformity to the draft. Also, the witnesses and the notary had already the will and
codicil silently, which Brigido agreed upon. Formal imperfections should be brushed aside, if it
only defeats the testator’s will.

Ajero v CA

- A holographic will can still be admitted to probate, even art. 814 is not complied. Unless
unauthenticated alterations or insertions or cancellations were made on the date of the
holographic will or on testator’s signature, their presence does not invalidate the will. The list
under art. 839 is exclusive and no other grounds can serve to disallow a will. In this case, what
makes a holographic will valid is that it must be handwritten by the testator himself, as provided
under art. 810. If the testator fails to sign and date some of the dispositions, the dispositions
cannot be effectuated but does not render the whole will void.

De Jesus v De Jesus jr.

 - A complete date is required to provide against contingencies as that of two competing wills on
the same day or of a testator becoming insane on the day of its execution. In this case, there
was no evidence of fraud, because Bibiana wrote, signed and dated the same by herself and in a
language known to her. All her children agreed to its genuineness and had testamentary capcity
at the time of its execution. “FEB./61”, as deemed by oppositor as invalid due to non-
compliance under art. 810, holds no merit. As a rule, date under holographic wills shall include
day, month, and year of its execution. But in this case, same is complied for the heirs of Bibiana
agreed on its genuineness and execution.

Labrador v CA

- The law does not require a particular location of the date in a holographic will. Under art. 810,
such will shall be written, dated, and executed in the hand of the testator.

Rodriguez v Rodriguez

- The respondents have no right of possession over the leased property because petitioner still
has the right of ownership and that the will and testament that the respondents presented for
their proof of right to possess the same was not probated in court. Under art. 838, no will shall
pss, either real or personal property, unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the
Rules of Court.

Nuguid v Nuguid

- The oppositors said that they were deprived of their legitime but neither they were disinherited.
This is a clear case of preterition. The will does not explicitly disinherit the testatrix’s parents. It
simply omits their names altogether. Hence, the will is null. Legacies and devises merit
consideration only when they are so expressly given as such in a will. Nothing under art. 854
suggests mere institution of a universal heir, being void because of preterition, would give the
heir a share in the inheritance. There must be an addition in the disposition granting him
bequests or legacies apart and separate from the nullified institution of heir.