G.R. No. L-23079 - Austria vs. Reyes

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-23079)

Key Dates and Applicable Law

Significant dates and events: July 7, 1956 — petition for probate of Basilia’s will filed; April 23, 1959 — Basilia died; November 5, 1959 — petition for intervention for partition filed by petitioners; December 22, 1959 — lower court allowed intervention; June 4, 1963 — lower court limited intervention to properties not disposed of in the will; October 25, 1963 and April 21, 1964 — reconsideration motions denied; February 27, 1970 — final decision on certiorari.
Applicable substantive and procedural law cited by the Court: Civil Code (notably articles 791, 842 and 850), Rules of Court (sections cited in the decision), and precedents relied upon by the Supreme Court. Applicable constitutional context: the 1935 Philippine Constitution (in force at the time of the decision).

Procedural Background and Incidents of Proof

Basilia’s will was duly probated after opposition by several nephews and nieces was dismissed. More than two years after probate, upon Basilia’s death, Perfecto Cruz was appointed executor without bond. Petitioners later filed an intervention for partition asserting they were the nearest kin and alleging the respondents’ adoptions were not legal, which would make respondents strangers to the decedent. The lower court initially granted intervention. The parties debated the authenticity of the respondents’ adoption papers; the NBI reported in favor of genuineness, while a Constabulary questioned‑document examiner and depositions from former court personnel supplied contrary evidence. The petitioners then sought to have the adoption papers reexamined and pursued hearings on the issue.

Orders Challenged and Relief Sought

Respondent Benita moved to limit the scope of petitioners’ intervention to properties not disposed of in the will. The lower court issued an order on June 4, 1963 delimiting the petitioners’ intervention to non‑testamentary properties, a decision later defended on reconsideration and by subsequent denials of motions for reconsideration (October 25, 1963 and April 21, 1964). Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari to annul those orders and to secure the right to challenge the institution of heirs as to all properties, including those disposed of by the will.

Legal Issues Presented

Primary legal question: Whether the institution of the respondents as heirs in Basilia’s will may be annulled under Article 850 of the Civil Code on the ground that the stated cause for their institution (i.e., their status as adopted compulsory heirs) is false, thereby rendering the devise ineffective and permitting intestate succession in favor of petitioners. Subsidiary questions: whether the contested orders limiting the intervention were an unlawful reversal or modification of the court’s earlier grant of intervention, and whether the validity of the adoptions could be collaterally attacked in the probate proceeding.

Statutory Standard — Article 850 and the Requisites for Annulment

The Court reiterated the requisites for annulling an institution of heirs under article 850: (1) the cause for the institution must be stated in the will; (2) the stated cause must be shown to be false; and (3) it must appear from the face of the will that the testator would not have made the institution had the testator known the cause to be false. Article 850 directs that a false cause be treated as not written unless the will itself shows the testator would have refrained from instituting the heir had the falsity been known.

Application of Article 850 to the Will’s Language and Testamentary Intent

The Court examined the will’s language and concluded that the will did not state with sufficient specificity or unequivocality the cause for instituting the respondents as heirs. While the will uses phrases drawn from succession law — “mga sapilitang tagapagmana” (compulsory heirs) and “sapilitang mana” (legitime) — these borrowings do not amount to an express or unequivocal statement that the testatrix was instituting the respondents solely because she believed herself legally bound to do so. The Court held that to annul the institution on the basis of the petitioners’ conjecture would be speculative; the will must show clearly that the testatrix would not have made the disposition had she known the cause to be false.

Testacy Favored, Avoidance of Intestacy, and Evidence of Testatrix’s Intent

The Court emphasized governing interpretative rules favoring testacy and avoiding intestacy: the words of a will should be given an interpretation that gives effect to every expression and prevents intestacy; where a will disposes of practically the whole estate, doubts should be resolved in favor of upholding the testator’s dispositions. The Court observed that the decedent’s will not only allocated legitimes (or purported legitimes) but also made liberal dispositions of the free portion in favor of the respondents and their descendants, while leaving relatively modest devises to blood relatives including the petitioners. This pattern, the Court found, indicated a real intention to benefit the respondents beyond merely complying with a mistaken belief about compulsory succession. Consequently, even if the adoption were false, the will did not show that Basilia would have declined to institute the respondents; therefore article 850 did not mandate annulment.

Collateral Attack and Finality of Probate

The Court held that the legality of the respondents’ adoption by the testatrix could not be successfully challenged colla

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-23079)

Procedural History

On July 7, 1956 Basilia Austria vda. de Cruz filed with the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Special Proceedings 2457) a petition for probate ante mortem of her last will and testament.
The probate was opposed by petitioners Ruben Austria, Consuelo Austria‑Benta and Lauro Austria Mozo and others (nephews and nieces), but the opposition was dismissed and the probate of the will allowed after due hearing.
On April 23, 1959 Basilia died. Perfecto Cruz was appointed executor without bond by the same court pursuant to the will.
On November 5, 1959 the present petitioners filed in the same proceedings a petition in intervention for partition alleging they are the nearest of kin and that the five respondents were not validly adopted by Basilia, thus rendering them strangers and without right to succeed as heirs.
The court a quo allowed the petitioners’ intervention by order of December 22, 1959, broadly granting: “The Petition in Intervention for Partition filed by the above‑named oppositors [Ruben Austria, et al.] dated November 5, 1959 is hereby granted.”
The parties engaged in dispute over the authenticity of adoption papers presented by respondents; documents were referred to the National Bureau of Investigation and later to the Philippine Constabulary at petitioners’ motion.
Petitioners obtained depositions from former personnel of the court alleged to have granted the questioned adoption denying knowledge of such adoption proceedings.
On February 6, 1963 petitioners moved to set the genuineness of the adoption for hearing.
Before hearing, respondent Benita Cruz‑Menez filed (Feb. 28, 1963) a motion asking that, if intervention be permitted, it be confined to properties not disposed of in the will; the court heard this motion on March 4, 1963.
The lower court issued an order on June 4, 1963 delimiting the petitioners’ intervention to the properties of the deceased which were not disposed of in the will.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on October 25, 1963; a second motion for reconsideration was summarily denied on April 21, 1964.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court seeking annulment of the orders of June 4 and October 25, 1963 and April 21, 1964 that restricted intervention to properties not included in the testamentary dispositions.

Factual Background

The bulk of Basilia’s estate, under the will, was destined to respondents Perfecto Cruz, Benita Cruz‑Menez, Isagani Cruz, Alberto Cruz and Luz Cruz‑Salonga, whom Basilia had “assumed and declared” as her legally adopted children.
Petitioners are among the nearest surviving blood relatives (nephews and nieces) of Basilia and contest the validity of the respondents’ adoptions.
Portions of Basilia’s will are quoted and relied upon by parties, notably provisions identifying the “sapilitang tagapagmana” and specifying distribution of the “sapilitang mana (legitime)” and other dispositions in favor of the respondents.
The will had been admitted to probate with a final judgment finding testamentary capacity and absence of fraud, trickery or undue influence.

Petitioners’ Contentions

Petitioners allege the adoptions of respondents were not performed in accordance with law, rendering respondents strangers with no right to succeed as heirs.
They argue the entire estate should descend by intestacy to them because the institution of heirs in the will is intrinsically null if the adoptions are false.
Petitioners invoke article 850 of the Civil Code: “The statement of a false cause for the institution of an heir shall be considered as not written, unless it appears from the will that the testator would not have made such institution if he had known the falsity of such cause,” and contend the will shows the institution was made because Basilia believed the respondents were compulsory heirs.
Petitioners seek to have the institution of heirs annulled and thus open the estate to intestacy.

Respondents’ Position and Lower Court Rationale

The lower court (by later orders) assumed that whether the adoption was valid or not is not material to the efficacy of the institution of heirs in the will because, even if adoptions were spurious, respondents would succeed as testamentary heirs instituted in Basilia’s will rather than as compulsory heirs.
The court reasoned that petitioners are not compulsory heirs and therefore cannot be prejudiced by indulgent testamentary dispositions; their interest is confined to properties not disposed of in the will.
Respondent Benita sought confinement of intervention to properties not disposed of in the will; the court adopted that delimitation.

Evidence and Proceedings on Adoption Authenticity

Petitioners had adoption documents referred to the National Bureau of Investigation for examination; N.B