BASIC SUCCESSION LAW

MATIAS, JUDEL ARSENIO

2A

G.R. No. 198994 FEBRUARY 3, 2016

MORALES v. OLONDRIZ ET. AL.

BRION, J.:

FACTS:

The decedent, Alfonso Juan P. Olondriz, Sr. died on June 9, 2003, he was survived by his
widow and their four children, and his illegitimate child.

Believing that the decedent died intestate, the respondent heirs filed a petition with the RTC
for the partition of the decedent’s estate, whereby one of the sons, Alfonso Jr., was appointed
as special administrator.

However, Iris Morales filed a separate petition with the RTC alleging that the decedent left a
will. The will provides that the estate shall be divided into six equal parts between Iris
Morales and the respondent heirs. The said will however, omitted the illegitimate child,
Francisco.

The RTC then suspended the intestate proceedings and set the case for probate, holding that
probate proceedings takes precedence over intestate proceedings. The RTC also summarily
revoked the Letters of Administration previously issued to Alfonso, Jr.

The RTC granted the motion for inhibition and the case was transferred to another branch.
The latter ruled that courts will not hesitate to set aside probate proceedings if it appears that
the probate of the will might become an idle ceremony because the will is intrinsically void.
This is in light of the preterition of the illegitimate child, Francisco. Then, RTC reinstated
Alfonso, Jr. as administrator of the estate and ordered the case to proceed in intestacy.
Morales filed for reconsideration but it was denied for lack of merit.

The Court of Appeals dismissed Morales’ petition for certiorari. The CA reasoned that while
probate proceedings take precedence over intestate proceedings, the preterition of a
compulsory heir in the direct line annuls the institution of heirs in the will and opens the
entire inheritance into intestate succession. Thus, the continuation of the probate proceedings
would be superfluous and impractical because the inheritance will be adjudicated intestate.
Further, the CA concluded that the RTC did not act with grave abuse of discretion. Morales
moved for reconsideration which the CA denied.

ISSUE:
Whether it was proper for the RTC to (1) pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will during
the probate proceedings and (2) order the case to proceed intestate because of preterition.
RULING:
The Court agreed with the ruling of the CA. Under Article 854 of the Civil Code, the
preterition of a compulsory heir in the direct line shall annul the institution of heirs, but the
devises and legacies shall remain valid insofar as the legitimes are not impaired.
Consequently, if a will does not institute any devisees or legatees, the preterition of a
compulsory heir in the direct line will result in total intestacy. Here, the decedent’s will
evidently omitted Francisco Olondriz as an heir, legatee or devisee. As the decedent’s
illegitimate son, Francisco is a compulsory heir in the direct line. Unless, Morales could show
otherwise in which she failed to do so.

As a general rule in probate proceedings, the scope of the court’s inquiry is limited to
questions on the extrinsic validity of the will; the probate court will only determine the will’s
formal validity and due execution. However, this rule is not inflexible and absolute. It is not
beyond the probate court's jurisdiction to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will when so
warranted by exceptional circumstances. When practical considerations demand that the
intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon even before it is probated, the probate court
should meet the issue.

The decedent's will does not contain specific legacies or devices and Francisco's preterition
annulled the institution of heirs. The annulment effectively caused the total abrogation of the
will, resulting in total intestacy of the inheritance. The decedent's will, no matter how valid it
may appear extrinsically, is null and void. The conduct of separate proceedings to determine
the intrinsic validity of its testamentary provisions would be superfluous.