G.R. No.

L-39247

June 27, 1975

In the Matter of the Petition to Approve the Will of Leodegaria Julian. FELIX BALANAY, JR.,
petitioner,
vs.
HON. ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch VI; AVELINA B.
ANTONIO and DELIA B. LANABAN, respondents.
BALANAY, JR. vs. MARTINEZ
64 SCRA 452
FACTS:
Leodegaria Julian was survived by her husband, Felix Balanay, Sr., and six legitimate children.
Felix Balanay, Jr. filed a petition for the probate of his mothers notarial will. In that will,
Leodegaria declared that it was her desire 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.
Felix Balanay, Sr. and Avelina B. Antonio opposed the probate of the will. Thereafter, Felix
Balanay, Sr. signed an instrument waiving and renouncing his right in Leodegarias estate in
favor of their 6 children.
The lower court ruled that the will was void and converted to intestate proceedings.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the probate court erred in passing upon the intrinsic validity of the will, before
ruling on its allowance or formal validity, and in declaring it void.
RULING:
The trial court acted correctly in passing upon the will's intrinsic validity even before its formal
validity had been established. But the probate court erred in declaring that the will was void and
in converting the testate proceeding into an intestate proceeding. 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.

G.R. No. L-23445

June 23, 1966

REMEDIOS NUGUID, petitioner and appellant,

vs.
FELIX NUGUID and PAZ SALONGA NUGUID, oppositors and appellees.

FACTS:
Rosario Nuguid , single, died in December 30, 1962.She was without descendants but was
survived by her parents and siblings. On May 18, 1963, Remedios Nuguid, her sister filed in CFI a
holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario on November 17, 1951 or 11 years ago, said will
instituted Remedios as the universal heir thereby, compulsory heirs, the ascendants of the
decedent, filed their opposition to the probate proceeding. They contend that they were illegally
preterited and as a consequence, the institution is void. The courts order held that the will in
question is a complete nullity.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the compulsory heirs were preterited , thereby rendering the holographic will
void.
Whether the court may rule on the intrinsic validity of the will.
RULING:
Yes. Where the deceased left no descendants, legitimate or illegitimate, but she left forced heirs
in the direct ascending line her parents, and her holographic will does not explicitly disinherit
them but simply omits their names altogether, the case is one of preterition of the parents, not a
case of ineffective disinheritance.
Where the one sentence will institutes the petitioner as the sole, universal heir and preterits the
parents of the testatrix, and it contains no specific legacies or bequests, such universal
institution of petitioner, by itself, is void. And intestate succession ensues.
On the second issue, the case is for the probate of the will and the courts area of inquiry is
limited to the extrinsic validity of the will comes after the will has been duly authenticated.
However if the case is to be remanded for probate of the will, nothing will be gained. The
practical conditions: time, effort, expenses and added anxiety, induced us to a belief that we
might as well meet head-on the issue of the validity of the provisions of the will in question.

G.R. No. 72706 October 27, 1987

CONSTANTINO C. ACAIN, petitioner,
vs.
HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (Third Special Cases Division), VIRGINIA A. FERNANDEZ and
ROSA DIONGSON, respondents.

ACAIN VS IAC
GRN 72706
OCTOBER 27, 1987
PARAS, J.:
FACTS:
Constantino filed for probate of the will of his decased brother Nemesio. The spouse and adopted
child of the decedent opposed the probate of will because of preterition. RTC dismissed the
petition of the wife. CA reversed and the probate thus was dismissed
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was preterition of compulsory heirs in the direct line thus their omission
shall not annul the institution of heirs.
RULING:
Preterition consists in the omission of the forced heirs because they are not mentioned there in,
or trough mentioned they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited. As for the
widow there is no preterit ion because she is not in the direct line. However, the same cannot be
said for the adopted child whose legal adoption has not been questioned by the petitioner.
Adoption gives to the adopted person the same rights and duties as if he where a legitimate child
of the adopter and makes the adopted person a legal heir hence, this is a clear case of
preterition.
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 was written. No legacies and devisees having been provided in the will,
the whole property of the deceased has been left by universal title to petitioner and his brothers
and sisters.

MANINANG V COURT OF APPEALS

G.R.No. L-57848; June 19, 1982
FACTS:
Clemencia, left a holographic will which provides that all her properties shall be inherited by Dra.
Maninang with whose family Clemencia has lived continuously for the last 30 years. The will also
provided that she does not consider Bernardo as his adopted son. Bernardo, as the adopted son,
claims to be the sole heir of decedent Clemencia Aseneta, instituted intestate proceedings.
The cases were consolidated and the testate proceeding was dismissed by the trial court
following the court's reasoning that the adopted son was preterited and intestacy should ensue.
Maninang filed a petition for certiorari arguing that the court's findings should be limited to the
extrinsic validity of the will and not the intrinsic validity.
ISSUE:
WON the dismissal of the court a quo of the testate case proper?
RULING:
No, it was not proper. Probate of a will is mandatory as required by law and public policy.
Ordinarily, the probate of the will does not look into its intrinsic validity; but on the extrinsic
validity which includes the capacity of the testator to make a will and the compliance with the
requisites or solemnities which the law prescribes for the validity of wills. However, when
practical considerations demand, the intrinsic validity of the will may be passed upon like
when on its face there is really preterition or invalid disinheritance making the will void. The
probate might become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be intrinsically void. Such
would shorten the proceedings if the issues are decided as early as during the probate
proceedings. In the instant case, there is still doubt to the alleged preterition or disinheritance of
the private respondent cannot be clearly seen on the face of the will and needs further
determination which can only be made if the will is allowed to be probated. The decision of the
court a quo is set aside. Case is remanded for further proceedings.