Case Summary (G.R. No. 72706)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
May 29, 1984: Petitioner filed Special Proceedings No. 591-A-CEB for probate of the will of Nemesio Acain and for issuance of letters testamentary. June 25, 1984 and subsequent months: Proceedings and motions in the trial court. Trial court denied respondents’ motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration (orders dated January 21, 1985 and February 15, 1985). March 11, 1985: Case referred by the Supreme Court to the Intermediate Appellate Court. August 30, 1985: Intermediate Appellate Court ordered dismissal of the probate petition. October 23, 1985: Intermediate Appellate Court denied reconsideration. December 18, 1985: Petitioner filed the present petition for review in the Supreme Court. October 27, 1987: Supreme Court En Banc rendered the decision under review.
Facts Material to the Controversy
The decedent, Nemesio Acain, allegedly executed a will on February 17, 1960 (Bisaya text with English translation submitted by petitioner without objection). The will appointed an executor and contained provisions on burial rites and debts. Testamentary disposition provided that the testator’s share of jointly earned properties was to be given to his brother Segundo Acain, and, should Segundo predecease him (which he did), to Segundo’s children: Anita, Constantino (the present petitioner), Concepcion, Quirina, Laura, Flores, Antonio, and Jose (all with surname Acain). Private respondents—Rosa Diongson (widow) and Virginia A. Fernandez (legally adopted daughter)—were not provided for in the will.
Procedural Motion to Dismiss and Grounds Raised
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss in the trial court on three grounds: (1) petitioner lacked legal capacity to institute probate proceedings; (2) petitioner was merely an instituted universal heir; and (3) the widow and the adopted daughter had been preterited. The trial court denied the motion and reconsideration, prompting respondents to seek relief by certiorari and prohibition before the Intermediate Appellate Court, which granted their petition and ordered dismissal of the probate proceeding.
Legal Issue Framed for Supreme Court Review
The pivotal legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether private respondents had been preterited within the meaning of Article 854 of the Civil Code, and, if so, whether preterition annulled the institution of heirs and consequently deprived the petitioner of legal capacity to seek probate.
Governing Law on Preterition and Adoption
Article 854, Civil Code (quoted in the record) provides that omission of one or more compulsory heirs in the direct line shall annul the institution of heirs, with legacies and devises remaining valid insofar as they are not inofficious; if the omitted compulsory heirs predeceased the testator, institution remains effective with right of representation preserved. Under Article 39 of P.D. No. 603, adoption confers upon the adopted person the same rights, duties, and status as a legitimate child of the adopter, including succession rights; thus the legally adopted daughter is a compulsory heir in the direct line for purposes of Article 854.
Court’s Analysis on Preterition and Effect on the Will
The Court found that the adopted daughter, Virginia A. Fernandez, was totally omitted from the will and was not expressly disinherited; this constituted preterition of a compulsory heir in the direct line. Preterition annuls the institution of heirs and, absent other testamentary dispositions (legacies or devises), results in total intestacy. Because the will universally instituted petitioner and his siblings as heirs to the entire estate and contained no legacies or devises, annulment of that universal institution rendered the will effectively null and the estate incapable of being probated under that testamentary scheme.
Standing and Legal Capacity to Institute Probate
Given the annulment of the institution of heirs by reason of preterition, the Court concluded that petitioner, though named as an instituted universal heir, effectively ceased to be an heir under the testamentary scheme and therefore lacked the legal interest or standing required to institute probate. The Court applied the principle that a person seeking to intervene in probate must have an interest in the estate or in the will (as heir, devisee, legatee, executor, or claimant).
Availability and Proper Use of Extraordinary Remedies
The Court recognized the general rule that certiorari and prohibition are not substitutes for appeal but reiterated established exceptions: where an order displays a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction or where appeal does not afford a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Because the trial court could have — and under precedent should have — denied probate or considered intrinsic invalidity when the will
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 72706)
Case Caption, Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 239 Phil. 96, En Banc, G.R. No. 72706, decided October 27, 1987.
- Petitioner: Constantino C. Acain.
- Respondents: Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court (Third Special Cases Division), Virginia A. Fernandez, and Rosa Diongson (widow of the deceased).
- Nature of the case: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court (AC-G.R. SP No. 05744) dated August 30, 1985 ordering dismissal of the probate petition docketed as Special Proceedings No. 591-A-CEB in the Regional Trial Court, Branch XIII, Cebu City; and its Resolution of October 23, 1985 denying respondents’ motion for reconsideration.
- Relief sought in Supreme Court: Review and reversal of the Intermediate Appellate Court’s decision; various constitutional and substantive challenges to Article 854 of the Civil Code raised by petitioner.
Facts and Background
- On May 29, 1984, petitioner Constantino Acain filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (Branch XIII, Cebu City), docketed Special Proceedings No. 591-A-CEB, for probate of the will of the late Nemesio Acain and for issuance of letters testamentary to petitioner.
- The will was allegedly executed on February 17, 1960, written in Bisaya with an English translation submitted by petitioner; private respondents raised no objection to the translation.
- The will contained provisions concerning burial rites, payment of debts, and appointment of Atty. Ignacio G. Villagonzalo as executor.
- Dispositive clause of the will (reproduced in the record): the testator bequeathed "all my shares that I may receive from our properties, house, lands and money which I earned jointly with my wife Rosa Diongson" to his brother Segundo Acain, and in case Segundo predeceased the testator, to Segundo’s children named: Anita, Constantino, Concepcion, Quirina, Laura, Flores, Antonio and Jose Acain.
- Segundo Acain had predeceased Nemesio Acain, so the will’s universal institution effectively named Segundo’s children (including petitioner) as heirs by universal title.
- Private respondents who opposed probate: Virginia A. Fernandez (legally adopted daughter of the deceased) and Rosa Diongson Vda. de Acain (the widow).
Lower Court Proceedings and Motions to Dismiss
- Before the scheduled hearing (June 25, 1984), private respondents filed a motion to dismiss in the trial court on these grounds:
- (1) Petitioner has no legal capacity to institute the proceedings.
- (2) Petitioner is merely a universal heir.
- (3) The widow and the adopted daughter have been preterited.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss by order dated January 21, 1985, reasoning that the grounds were matters properly resolved after hearing on the issues in the course of trial on the merits.
- The trial court denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration on February 15, 1985.
Intermediate Appellate Court Action and Relief Sought by Respondents
- Respondents filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Supreme Court, which referred the case to the Intermediate Appellate Court by resolution dated March 11, 1985.
- The Intermediate Appellate Court granted respondents’ petition, ordered dismissal of Special Proceedings No. 591-A-CEB, and its decision was promulgated August 30, 1985 (no special pronouncement as to costs). Motion for reconsideration was denied by the Intermediate Appellate Court in its October 23, 1985 Resolution.
Petition for Review in the Supreme Court and Briefing
- Petitioner filed the present petition for review of the Court of Appeals’ decision on December 18, 1985.
- Respondents filed their Comment on June 6, 1986.
- The Supreme Court resolved to give due course to the petition on August 11, 1986.
- Memoranda were filed by respondents (September 22, 1986) and petitioner (September 29, 1986).
Issues Raised by Petitioner
- Petitioner articulated the following points (as presented in his Memorandum):
- (A) The remedy pursued in AC-G.R. No. 05744 (certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction) was not the proper remedy under the circumstances.
- (B) The probate court’s authority is limited to inquiring into the extrinsic validity of the will and cannot pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will before admitting it to probate.
- (C) The will of Nemesio Acain is valid and must be admitted to probate; Article 854’s reference to preterition applies only to "compulsory heirs in the direct line" and does not apply to private respondents who are not compulsory heirs in the direct line, so omission of widow and adopted daughter does not annul the institution of heirs.
- (D) Dicat testator et erit lex (what the testator says will be the law).
- (E) The testator’s explicit and definite intention as expressed in the will should be inviolable; the mere institution of a universal heir should be respected.
- (F) As an instituted heir, petitioner has legal interest and standing to file the probate petition.
- (G) Article 854 of the Civil Code is a bill of attainder and therefore unconstitutional and ineffectual.
Relevant Statutory Provisions and Doctrines Cited in the Decision
- Article 854, New Civil Code (text as quoted in the decision):
- "Art. 854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devisees and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious. If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall be effectual, without prejudice to the right of representation."
- Article 39, P.D. No. 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code) summarized by the Court:
- Adoption gives the adopted person the same rights and duties