G.R. No. L-57848 - Manig vs. Court of Appeals

Decedent Clemencia Aseneta died on May 21, 1977 at the Manila Sanitarium Hospital at age 81.
Decedent left a holographic will stating, inter alia, that "all my real properties located in Manila, Makati, Quezon City, Albay and Legaspi City and all my personal properties shall be inherited upon my death by Dra. Soledad L. Maninang" because she had lived with her family "continuously for around the last 30 years."
The will contained additional statements that the testatrix had "found peace and happiness" with the Maninang family and that she was "not incompetent," and that she did not consider "Nonoy as my adopted son" because he "has made me do things against my will."

On June 9, 1977, Soledad L. Maninang filed a Petition for probate of the Will of the decedent with the Court of First Instance-Branch IV, Quezon City, docketed as Special Proceeding No. Q-23304 (the Testate Case).
On July 25, 1977, Bernardo S. Aseneta, claiming to be the adopted son and sole heir of the decedent, instituted intestate proceedings with the Court of First Instance-Branch XI, Pasig, Rizal, docketed as Special Proceeding No. 8569 (the Intestate Case).
On December 23, 1977, the Testate and Intestate Cases were ordered consolidated before Branch XI, presided by respondent Judge.

Bernardo S. Aseneta filed a Motion to Dismiss the Testate Case on the ground that the holographic will was null and void because he, as the only compulsory heir, was preterited and intestacy should ensue; he relied on Neri vs. Akutin, Nuguid vs. Nuguid, and Ramos vs. Baldovino.
Soledad L. Maninang opposed the Motion and averred that probate of a will required examination limited to extrinsic validity and that the decedent effectively disinherited Bernardo S. Aseneta.

On September 8, 1980, the Court of First Instance-Branch XI ordered dismissal of the Testate Case, finding meritorious the Motion to Dismiss filed by Bernardo S. Aseneta.
On December 19, 1980, the lower Court denied reconsideration and appointed Bernardo S. Aseneta as administrator of the intestate estate, stati...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the Court of First Instance-Branch XI acted in excess of its jurisdiction in dismissing the Testate Case prior to probate.
Whether Certiorari was a proper remedy to challenge the trial Court's dismissal of the probate petition instead of appeal.

Whether, as a matter of law and on the face of the will, Bernardo S. Aseneta was preterited or validly disinherited under the terms of the holographic will.
Whether the trial Court could properly pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will prior to or instead of its probate under the exception recognized in Nuguid vs. Nuguid and Balanay vs. Hon. Martinez.

(Subscriber-Only)