DELA CRUZ, Airiz M.

Cases on Succession 4th Batch

2016-166623

Austria vs. Reyes

G.R. No. L-23079 February 27, 1970

Facts:

Basilia Austria filed a petition for probate, ante mortem, of her last will and
testament. Under the will, the bulk of the estate of Basilia will pass on to the private
respondents whom had been declared by Basilia as her legally adopted children.

The probate was opposed by the petitioners who are nephews and nieces of
Basilia. The opposition was dismissed and the probate of the will was allowed.
However, more than two years after her will was allowed to probate, Basilia died.

Petitioners filed a petition in intervention alleging that they are the nearest of
kin of Basilia and that the private respondents had not been adopted by the decedent
in accordance with law, in effect rendering the respondents mere strangers to the
decedent and without any right to succeed as heirs.

The petitioners further contend that had the deceased known the adoption to
be spurious, she would not have instituted the private respondents at all — the basis
of the institution being solely her belief that they were compulsory heirs.

The lower court had, however, assumed that the validity or invalidity of the
adoption is not material nor decisive on the efficacy of the institution of heirs for, even
if the adoption in question were spurious, the private respondents will nevertheless
succeed not as compulsory heirs but as testamentary heirs instituted in Basilia's will.

Issue:

Whether or not the institution of heirs would retain efficacy in the event there
exists proof that the adoption of the heirs by the decedent is false

Ruling:

Before the institution of heirs may be annulled under article 850 of the Civil
Code, the following requisites must concur: First, the cause for the institution of heirs
must be stated in the will; second, the cause must be shown to be false; and third, it
must appear from the face of the will that the testator would not have made such
institution if he had known the falsity of the cause.

The decedent's will does not state in a specific or unequivocal manner the cause
for such institution of heirs. The Court cannot annul the same on the basis of
guesswork or uncertain implications.

Further, Article 850 of the Civil Code is a positive injunction to ignore

whatever false cause the testator may have written in his will for the institution of
heirs. Such institution may be annulled only when one is satisfied, after an
examination of the will, that the testator clearly would not have made the institution
if he had known the cause for it to be false.

The use of phrase "mga sapilitang tagapagmana" and "sapilitang mana" offer
no absolute indication that the decedent would have willed her estate other than the
way she did if she had known that she was not bound by law to make allowance for
legitimes.
 The words of a will are to receive an interpretation which will give to every
expression some effect, rather than one which will render any of the expressions
inoperative; and of two modes of interpreting a will, that is to be preferred which will
prevent intestacy.

At all events, the legality of the adoption of the respondents by the testatrix
can be assailed only in a separate action brought for that purpose, and cannot be the
subject of a collateral attack.
 Heirs of Policronio M. Ureta, Sr. vs. Heirs of Liberato M. Ureta
G.R. No. 165748 September 14, 2011

Facts:

In October 1969, Alfonso Ureta and four of his children namely, Policronio,
Liberato, Prudencia, and Francisco, met. Francisco, suggested that in order to reduce
the inheritance taxes, their father should make it appear that he had sold some of his
lands to his children. Accordingly, Alfonso executed four Deeds of Sale covering
several parcels of land in favor of the said children. However, no monetary
consideration was given and Alfonso continued to own, possess and enjoy the lands
and their produce.

The rest of the parcels transferred to Policronio were tenanted. However, the
tenants never turned over the produce of the lands to Policronio or any of his heirs,
but to Alfonso. Neither Policronio nor his heirs ever took possession of the subject
lands until the death of Policronio.

Alfonso’s heirs executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition which included all

the lands that were covered by the four (4) deeds of sale. Conrado, representing the
Heirs of Policronio, signed the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition in behalf of his co-
heirs.

After their father’s death, the Heirs of Policronio found tax declarations in his
name covering the six parcels of land. Believing that the six parcels of land belonged
to their father and should be excluded from the partition, they filed a complaint for
recovery of possession and ownership against the Heirs of Alfonso.

The RTC dismissed the Complaint of the Heirs of Policronio and ruled that the
Heirs of Alfonso clearly established that the Deed of Sale was null and void. The Deed
of Extra-Judicial Partition, on the other hand, was declared valid by the RTC as all
the heirs of Alfonso were represented and received equal shares.

On appeal, the CA declared the Deed of Sale was void for being simulated. But
it annulled the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition due to the incapacity Conrado to sign
in behalf of his co-heirs as he is not clothe with a special power of attorney.

The Heirs of Policronio contended that the Heirs of Alfonso are not parties,
heirs, or successors-in-interest under the contemplation of law to clothe them with
the personality to question the Deed of Sale; that even assuming that they have an
interest in the Deed of Sale, the Heirs of Alfonso must first prove that the sale
substantially diminished their successional rights or that their legitimes would be
unduly prejudiced; and that prescription had set in precluding any question on the
validity of the Deed of Sale.

On the other hand, the Heirs of Alfonso argued that the Deed of Extra-Judicial
Partition should not have been annulled, and instead the preterited heirs should be
given their share.

Issues:

1. Whether or not right to set up the nullity of a void or non-existent contract

is not limited to the parties

2. Whether or not the Heirs of Alfonso must first prove that the sale
substantially diminished their successional rights or that their legitimes
would be unduly prejudiced
 3. Whether or not the absence of the Heirs of Policronio in the partition or
the lack of authority of their representative results in their preterition and not in the
invalidity of the entire deed of partition

Rulings:

1. The Supreme Court disagrees.

Section 9 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that when the terms of an
agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms
agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest,
no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement. The term
"agreement" includes wills.

The right to set up the nullity of a void or non-existent contract is not limited
to the parties, as in the case of annullable or voidable contracts; it is extended to third
persons who are directly affected by the contract. Thus, where a contract is absolutely
simulated, even third persons who may be prejudiced thereby may set up its
inexistence.

The Heirs of Alfonso are the children of Alfonso, with his deceased children
represented by their children (Alfonso’s grandchildren). The Heirs of Alfonso are
clearly his heirs and successors-in-interest and, as such, their interests are directly
affected, thereby giving them the right to question the legality of the Deed of Sale.

2. Still, the Supreme Court disagrees.

Article 842 of the Civil Code provides that one who has compulsory heirs may
dispose of his estate provided he does not contravene the provisions of this Code with
regard to the legitime of said heirs.

This article refers to the principle of freedom of disposition by will. What is

involved in the case at bench is not a disposition by will but by Deed of Sale. Hence,
the Heirs of Alfonso need not first prove that the disposition substantially diminished
their successional rights or unduly prejudiced their legitimes.

3. No. Preterition cannot apply.

Preterition has been defined as the total omission of a compulsory heir from
the inheritance. It consists in the silence of the testator with regard to a compulsory
heir, omitting him in the testament, either by not mentioning him at all, or by not
giving him anything in the hereditary property but without expressly disinheriting
him, even if he is mentioned in the will in the latter case. Preterition is thus a concept
of testamentary succession and requires a will.

In the case at bench, there is no will involved. Hence, preterition cannot apply.