Case Digest (G.R. No. 213696) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Ruben Austria, Consuelo Austria-Benta and Lauro Austria Mozo vs. Hon. Andres Reyes, Judge, CFI of Rizal, Perfecto Cruz, et al. (142 Phil. 646, February 27, 1970), Basilia Austria vda. de Cruz filed on July 7, 1956 a petition for ante mortem probate of her last will in the CFI of Rizal. The petitioners, nephews and nieces of Basilia, opposed the probate but the court allowed it. Under the will, Basilia left the bulk of her estate to Perfecto Cruz, Benita Cruz-Menez, Isagani Cruz, Alberto Cruz and Luz Cruz-Salonga, whom she described as her “legally adopted children” and “compulsory heirs.” On April 23, 1959 Basilia died; Perfecto Cruz was appointed executor without bond. On November 5, 1959 the petitioners filed a petition in intervention for partition, alleging that the adoptions were spurious and that respondents were strangers, thus disqualifying them as heirs. The court initially granted the intervention but, after respondents moved to confine it to properties not disposed Case Digest (G.R. No. 213696) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Proceedings on the probate of Basilia Austria’s will
- July 7, 1956 – Basilia Austria filed a petition for ante mortem probate of her last will (SPI No. 2457) in the CFI of Rizal.
- Opposition by nephews and nieces (Ruben Austria, Consuelo Austria-Benta, Lauro Austria Mozo, et al.) was dismissed; the will was admitted to probate.
- Death of testatrix and appointment of executor
- April 23, 1959 – Basilia died; Perfecto Cruz (one of the adopted heirs named in the will) was appointed executor without bond.
- November 5, 1959 – Petitioners filed a petition in intervention for partition, alleging respondents’ adoption was invalid and thus they were not lawful heirs.
- Contest over the authenticity of adoption documents
- Referral of documents to NBI – Report indicated genuineness.
- Petitioners obtained contrary opinion from Constabulary examiner; secured depositions from former court personnel denying knowledge of adoption proceedings.
- Lower court proceedings on intervention and its scope
- December 22, 1959 – Court granted petitioners’ intervention in broad terms.
- February 6, 1963 – Petitioners moved to set the adoption issue for hearing.
- February 28, 1963 – Respondent Benita Cruz-Menez moved to confine intervention to properties not disposed by will.
- June 4, 1963 – Court ordered intervention limited to intestate properties.
- October 25, 1963 and April 21, 1964 – Motions for reconsideration denied.
- Petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court
- Petitioners sought to annul the orders of June 4, October 25, and April 21 restricting their intervention.
- Core dispute: whether respondents’ presumed adoption (and thus their institution as compulsory/testamentary heirs) can be collaterally attacked in the probate proceeding.
Issues:
- Scope of petitioners’ intervention
- Whether the lower court erred in limiting intervention to properties not disposed by the will.
- Whether petitioners’ rights as nearest kin were prejudiced by such limitation.
- Validity of institution of heirs under the will
- Whether proof of a false adoption vitiates the institution of heirs under Art. 850, Civil Code.
- Whether the will states a cause for the institution which, if false, may render the institution void.
- Collateral attack on adoption
- Whether the legality of adoption can be disputed in a collateral proceeding (the probate/intervention).
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)