Title
Dy Yieng Seangio vs. Reyes
Case
G.R. No. 140371-72
Decision Date
Nov 27, 2006
Dispute over Segundo Seangio's holographic will; RTC dismissed probate due to preterition, but SC ruled will valid, prioritizing testate over intestate proceedings.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 140371-72)

Facts:

  • Parties and Initial Petitions
    • Petitioners: Dy Yieng Seangio, Barbara D. Seangio, Virginia D. Seangio.
    • Private Respondents: Alfredo D. Seangio, Alberto D. Seangio, Elisa D. Seangio-Santos, Victor D. Seangio, Alfonso D. Seangio, Shirley D. Seangio-Lim, Betty D. Seangio-Obas, James D. Seangio, and Hon. Amor A. Reyes (Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 21, Manila).
  • Intestate and Testate Proceedings
    • SP. Proc. No. 98-90870 (Intestate) filed Sept. 21, 1988 by private respondents to settle the estate of Segundo C. Seangio and appoint Elisa D. Seangio-Santos as special administrator and guardian ad litem of Dy Yieng. Petitioners opposed, alleging that their mother was capable, that Virginia held a power of attorney, and that there existed a holographic will dated Sept. 20, 1995 disinheriting Alfredo.
    • SP. Proc. No. 99-93396 (Testate) filed Apr. 7, 1999 by petitioners to probate the holographic will, arguing testate proceedings take precedence over intestate cases.
  • The Holographic Will
    • Titled “Kasulatan sa Pag-Aalis ng Mana,” dated September 20, 1995, entirely handwritten and signed by Segundo C. Seangio before three witnesses including Dy Yieng. It disinherits eldest son Alfredo for maltreatment and financial misconduct.
    • May 29, 1999: consolidation of both proceedings upon petitioners’ motion.
  • RTC Orders of Dismissal
    • August 10, 1999: RTC dismissed SP. Proc. No. 99-93396 for preterition, finding only Alfredo and Virginia named, thereby omitting other compulsory heirs (Article 854, Civil Code). Denied motion to suspend intestate proceedings.
    • October 14, 1999: RTC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

Issues:

  • Jurisdictional and Procedural Compliance
    • Did the RTC act in excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion by dismissing the testate case without complying with Sections 3 and 4, Rule 76, Rules of Court?
  • Scope of Probate Court Authority
    • Was the RTC barred from examining intrinsic validity (preterition) when probate courts are generally limited to extrinsic validity (due execution, capacity, formalities)?
  • Existence of Preterition
    • Does the holographic will exhibit preterition by omitting compulsory heirs, rendering the institution of heir void under Article 854, Civil Code?
  • Precedence of Testate Over Intestate Proceedings
    • Should the RTC have suspended the intestate case in favor of the testate proceedings in accordance with the rule favoring testacy over intestacy?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.