G.R. No.

72706, October 27, 1987

ACAIN vs. IAC
FACTS:
On May 29, 1984 petitioner Constantino Acain filed on the RTC of Cebu City, a petition for the probate
of the will of the late e!esio Acain and for the issuance to the sa!e petitioner of letters testa!entary,
on the re!"se th#t Ne!es"o Ac#"n $"e$ %e#v"n& # '"%% in which petitioner and his brothers Antonio,
"lores and #ose and his sisters Anita, Concepcion, $uirina and %aura were instituted as heirs& The will
alle'edly e(ecuted by e!esio Acain on "ebruary 1), 19*+ was written in ,isaya with a translation in
-n'lish sub!i.tted by petitioner without ob/ection raised by pri0ate respondents& The will contained
pro0isions on burial rites, pay!ent of debts, and the appoint!ent of a certain Atty& 1'nacio 2&
3illa'on4alo as the e(ecutor of the testa!ent& On the disposition of the testator.s property, the will
pro0ided that all the testator5s shares that he !ay recei0e fro! the properties, house, lands and !oney
which he earned /ointly with his wife Rosa shall all be 'i0en to his brother 6e'undo& 1n case 6e'undo
Acain pre7deceased the testator, all the !oney properties, lands, houses shall be 'i0en to 6e'undo5s
children&
6e'undo pre7deceased e!esio& Thus it is the children of 6e'undo who are clai!in' to be heirs of the
estate of e!esio Acain& After the petition was set for hearin' in the lower court on #une 28, 1984 the
oppositors 9respondents herein 3ir'inia A& "ernande4, a le'ally adopted dau'hter of tile deceased and the
latter.s widow Rosa filed a !otion to dis!iss on the followin' 'rounds for the petitioner has no le'al
capacity to institute these proceedin's: 92; he is !erely a uni0ersal heir and 9<; the widow and the
adopted dau'hter ha0e been preterited& 6aid !otion was denied by the trial /ud'e&
Respondents filed with the 6upre!e Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preli!inary
in/unction which was subse=uently referred to the 1AC& Respondent 1AC 'ranted pri0ate respondents.
petition and ordered the trial court to dis!iss the petition for the probate of the will of e!esio Acain&
166>-? @A the petition for the probate of the will should be dis!iss on the followin' 'rounds? 91;
petitioner has no le'al capacity to institute the proceedin's: 92; he is !erely a uni0ersal heir: and 9<; the
widow and the adopted dau'hter ha0e been preterited
B-%C? Des&
"or pri0ate respondents to ha0e tolerated the probate of the will and allowed the case to pro'ress when on
"ts (#ce the '"%% #e#rs to be "ntr"ns"c#%%) vo"$ as petitioner and his brothers and sisters were instituted
as uni0ersal heirs coupled with the ob0ious fact that one of the pri0ate respondents had been preterited
would ha0e been an e(ercise in futility& 1t would ha0e !eant a waste of ti!e, effort, e(pense, plus added
futility& The tr"#% co*rt co*%$ h#ve $en"e$ "ts rob#te o*tr"&ht or co*%$ h#ve #sse$ *on the
"ntr"ns"c v#%"$"t) o( the test#!ent#r) rov"s"ons be(ore the e+tr"ns"c v#%"$"t) o( the '"%% '#s reso%ve$
,reter"t"on cons"sts "n the o!"ss"on "n the test#tor-s '"%% o( the (orce$ he"rs or #n)one o( the! e"ther
bec#*se the) #re not !ent"one$ there"n, or, thou'h !entioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor
are e(pressly disinherited& 1nsofar as the widow is concerned, Article 884 of the Ci0il Code !ay not apply
as she does not ascend or descend fro! the testator, althou'h she is a co!pulsory heir& St#te$ other'"se,
even "( the s*rv"v"n& so*se "s # co!*%sor) he"r, there "s no reter"t"on even "( she "s o!"tte$ (ro!
the "nher"t#nce, (or she "s not "n the direct line . 9Art& 884, Ci0il code; howe0er, the sa!e thin' cannot
be said of the other respondent 3ir'inia A& "ernande4, whose le'al adoption by the testator has not been
=uestioned by petitioner& >nder Article <9 of E&C& o& *+<, Fnown as the Child and Douth @elfare
Code, adoption 'i0es to the adopted person the sa!e ri'hts and duties as if he were a le'iti!ate child of
the adopter and !aFes the adopted person a le'al heir of the adopter& 1t cannot be denied that she has
totally o!itted and preterited in the will of the testator and that both adopted child and the widow were
depri0ed of at least their le'iti!e& either can it be denied that they were not e(pressly disinherited&
Bence, this is a clear case of preterition of the le'ally adopted child&
,reter"t"on #nn*%s the "nst"t*t"on o( #n he"r #n$ #nn*%!ent thro's oen to "ntest#te s*ccess"on the
ent"re "nher"t#nce& The on%) rov"s"ons 'h"ch $o not res*%t "n "ntest#c) #re the %e&#c"es #n$ $ev"ses
!#$e "n the '"%% (or the) sho*%$ st#n$ v#%"$ #n$ resecte$, e+cet "nso(#r #s the %e&"t"!es #re
concerne$&
Eetitioner is not the appointed e(ecutor, neither a de0isee or a le'atee there bein' no !ention in the
testa!entary disposition of any 'ift of an indi0idual ite! of personal or real property he is called upon to
recei0e 9Article )82, Ci0il Code;& At the outset, he appears to ha0e an interest in the will as an heir,
defined under Article )82 of the Ci0il Code as a person called to the succession either by the pro0ision of
a will or by operation of law& Bowe0er, intestacy ha0in' resulted fro! the preterition of respondent
adopted child and the uni0ersal institution of heirs, petitioner is in effect not an heir of the testator& Be has
no le'al standin' to petition for the probate of the will left by the deceased
The 'eneral rule is that the probate court.s authority is li!ited only to the e(trinsic 0alidity of the will, the
due e(ecution thereof, the testator.s testa!entary capacity and the co!pliance with the re=uisites or
sole!nities prescribed by law& The intrinsic 0alidity of the will nor!ally co!es only after the Court has
declared that the will has been duly authenticated& The rule, howe0er, is not infle(ible and absolute&
>nder e(ceptional circu!stances, the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it
to do and pass upon certain pro0isions of the will& In N*&*"$ v. N*&*"$, the oos"tors to the rob#te
!ove$ to $"s!"ss on the &ro*n$ o( #bso%*te reter"ton The rob#te co*rt #ct"n& on the !ot"on he%$
th#t the '"%% "n .*est"on '#s # co!%ete n*%%"t) #n$ $"s!"sse$ the et"t"on '"tho*t costs & On appeal
the 6upre!e Court upheld the decision of the probate court&
1n Cayetano v. Leonides, supra one of the issues raised in the !otion to dis!iss the petition deals with the
0alidity of the pro0isions of the will& Respondent #ud'e allowed the probate of the will& The Court held
that as on its face the will appeared to ha0e preterited the petitioner the respondent /ud'e should ha0e
denied its probate outri'ht& /here c"rc*!st#nces $e!#n$ th#t "ntr"ns"c v#%"$"t) o( test#!ent#r)
rov"s"ons be #sse$ *on even be(ore the e+tr"ns"c v#%"$"t) o( the '"%% "s reso%ve$, the rob#te co*rt
sho*%$ !eet the "ss*e.