Reyes vs Barreto-Datu

19 SCRA 85
Doctrine:
Preterition is the omission of one, some or all compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether
living at the time of the death of the testator, or born subsequent thereto. Among other things,
Reyes holds that omission from the inheritance, as an element of preterition, must be a total
omission, such that if a compulsory heir in the direct line received something from the testator
under the terms of the will, such heir cannot be considered preterited

Facts:
Bibiano Barretto was married to Maria Gerardo. During their lifetime they acquired a
vast estate, consisting of real properties in Manila, Pampanga, and Bulacan.When Bibiano
Barretto died he left his share in a will to Salud Barretto and Lucia Milagros Barretto and a small
portion as legacies to his two sisters Rosa Barretto and Felisa Barretto and his nephew and
nieces.

The usufruct of a fishpond was reserved for his widow, Maria Gerardo. Maria Gerardo, as
administratrix prepared a project of partition. It was approved and the estate was distributed and
the shares delivered.

Later on, Maria Gerardo died. Upon her death, it was discovered that she executed two
wills, in the first, she instituted Salud and Milagros, both surnamed Barretto, as her heirs; and, in
the second, she revoked the same and left all her properties in favor of Milagros Barretto alone.

The later will was allowed and the first rejected. In rejecting the first will presented by
Tirso Reyes, as guardian of the children of Salud Barretto,

the LC held that Salud was not the daughter of the decedent Maria Gerardo by her
husband Bibiano Barretto. This ruling was appealed to the SC, which affirmed the same. ***
(Previous case Reyes vs Barreto 1956)

Having thus lost this fight for a share in the estate of Maria Gerardo, as a legitimate heir
of Maria Gerardo, plaintiff now falls back upon the remnant of the estate of the deceased Bibiano
Barretto, which was given in usufruct to his widow Maria Gerardo. Hence, this action for the
recovery of one-half portion, thereof.

This action afforded the defendant an opportunity to set up her right of ownership, not
only of the fishpond under litigation, but of all the other properties willed and delivered to Salud
Barretto, for being a spurious heir, and not entitled to any share in the estate of Bibiano Barretto,
thereby directly attacking the validity, not only of the project of partition, but of the decision of
the court based thereon as well.

The nullity of the project was based on Art. 1081 of the Civil Code, which provides that “
A partition in which a person was believed to be an heir, without being so, has been included,
shall be null and void.

This court ordered the plaintiff to return the properties received under the project.

Issue/s:

Whether the partition from which Salud acquired the fishpond is void ab initio and Salud did not
acquire valid title to it. (NO)
*** If atty ask yung Preterition “Whether or not there was preterition” (NO)

Ruling:

Salud Barretto admittedly had been instituted heir in the late Bibiano Barretto’s last will
and testament together with defendant Milagros; hence, the partition had between them could not
be one such had with a party who was believed to be an heir without really being one, and was
not null and void.

The legal precept (Article 1081) does not speak of children, or descendants, but of heirs (without
distinction between forced, voluntary or intestate ones), and the fact that Salud happened not to
be a daughter of the testator does not preclude her being one of the heirs expressly named in his
testament; for Bibiano Barretto was at liberty to assign the free portion of his estate to
whomsoever he chose.

While the share (½) assigned to Salud impinged on the legitime of Milagros, Salud did not for
that reason cease to be a testamentary heir of Bibiano Barretto.

Nor does the fact that Milagros was allotted in her father’s will a share smaller than her legitime
invalidate the institution of Salud as heir, since there was here no preterition, or total ommission
of a forced heir.

Wherefore, the decision of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan now under appeal is
reversed and set aside in so far as it orders plaintiff-appellant to reconvey to appellee Milagros
Barretto Datu the properties enumerated in said decision, and the same is affirmed in so far as it
denies any right of said appellee to accounting. Let the records be returned to the court of origin,
with instructions to proceed with the action for partition of the fishpond.

The Court hold (1) that the partition had between Salud and Milagros Barretto in the
proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Bibiano Barretto, duly approved by the CFI of
Manila in 1939 is not void for being contrary to either articles 1081 or 1814 of the Civil Code of
1889; (2) that Milagros Barretto's action to contest said partition and decree of distribution is
barred by the statute of limitations; and (3) that her claim that plaintiff-appellant guardian is a
possessor in bad faith and should account for the fruits received from the properties inherited by
Salud Barretto is legally untenable. Therefore, the plaintiffs' action for partition of the fishpond
should have been given due course.