Case Summary (G.R. No. 228127)
Key Dates
- September 21, 1988: Petition for settlement of intestate estate filed (SP. Proc. No. 98‑90870).
- September 20, 1995: Date appearing on the document claimed to be the decedent’s holographic will.
- April 7, 1999: Petition for probate of the holographic will filed (SP. Proc. No. 99‑93396).
- May 29, 1999: Consolidation of the testate and intestate special proceedings.
- August 10, 1999 and October 14, 1999: RTC orders dismissing the probate petition and denying reconsideration.
- November 27, 2006: Decision of the Supreme Court granting the petition for certiorari and ordering reinstatement of the probate proceedings.
Applicable Law and Authorities
- Constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable by instruction for decisions 1990 or later).
- Rules of Court: Rule 65 (certiorari), Rule 76 (probate procedure, including Sections 3 and 4 regarding initial hearing and notice).
- Civil Code provisions cited: Articles 783 (definition of a will), 810 (holographic wills), 816–838 (probate formalities generally), 841 (validity even without institution of an heir), 854 (preterition), 916 (formal requirements for disinheritance), 919 (sufficient causes for disinheritance).
- Jurisprudence and doctrine cited in the decision: Acain v. Intermediate Appellate Court; Ajero v. Court of Appeals; Maninang v. Court of Appeals; Cuenco v. Court of Appeals; Tolentino’s Commentaries on the Civil Code.
Procedural History
Private respondents originally filed the intestate settlement petition in 1988. Petitioners later filed a petition to probate a document they claimed was a holographic will (dated September 20, 1995). The two special proceedings were consolidated in May 1999. Private respondents moved to dismiss the probate petition on the primary ground that the document contained no testamentary disposition of estate (alleged preterition) and therefore was intrinsically void. The RTC dismissed the probate petition for preterition and denied reconsideration. Petitioners sought relief by certiorari before the Supreme Court, asserting grave abuse of discretion and errors of law by the trial judge.
The Document in Issue
The instrument is captioned “Kasulatan sa pag‑aalis ng mana” and purports to disinherit Alfredo Seangio. It is written in the testator’s own hand, dated September 20, 1995, and signed by Segundo with three witnesses, including Dy Yieng (petitioners’ representative). Petitioners argued that the instrument is a holographic will effecting disinheritance of Alfredo and that probate should be allowed; private respondents argued the instrument contains only disinheritance and omits other compulsory heirs and thus shows preterition, rendering the instrument void for purposes of probate.
Issues Presented
- Whether the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion by dismissing the probate petition on the ground of preterition without following Rule 76 procedures and without allowing probate to proceed.
- Whether the instrument constitutes a valid holographic will under Article 810 of the Civil Code (i.e., entirely written, dated, and signed by the testator).
- Whether the instrument effected a valid disinheritance under Articles 916 and 919.
- Whether preterition under Article 854 obtains on the face of the instrument and whether dismissal of the probate petition was proper.
- Whether testate proceedings should take precedence over intestate proceedings.
Parties’ Contentions
- Petitioners: The instrument is a holographic will meeting formal requirements; disinheritance of Alfredo is a testamentary disposition; there is no institution of a universal heir that excludes other compulsory heirs; the probate court’s authority is generally limited to extrinsic validity and the RTC erred in dismissing the petition on intrinsic grounds and without complying with Rule 76 procedures (sections on notice and setting initial hearing). Testate proceedings should take precedence over intestate proceedings.
- Private respondents: The document lacks any disposition of property and mentions only two heirs (Alfredo and Virginia), thereby showing preterition and annulling any institution of heir; the probate petition should be dismissed as intrinsically void.
Trial Court Ruling and Rationale
The RTC dismissed the petition to probate the alleged will on the ground of preterition because the instrument mentioned only Alfredo and Virginia, omitting other heirs in the direct line and thus invoking Article 854. The RTC relied on precedent (Acain) in concluding the probate should not proceed when the will appears intrinsically void on its face.
Supreme Court Legal Framework on Probate and Holographic Wills
The Supreme Court reiterated that a holographic will must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the testator (Article 810). Probate courts ordinarily determine the extrinsic validity of wills—formal execution, testamentary capacity, voluntariness—but in exceptional circumstances the court may consider intrinsic provisions if necessary to avoid futility (Ajero, Acain). The Court emphasized the principle favoring testacy over intestacy and cited Article 838 that no will passes property unless proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. Articles governing disinheritance (916, 919), preterition (854), and the permissibility of wills without an institution of heir (841) guided the analysis.
Analysis: Formal Validity and Testamentary Intent
The Supreme Court found the instrument complied with the formal requirements of a holographic will: it was written, dated, and signed by the hand of Segundo. The Court also deduced an intent to dispose mortis causa from the instrument’s terms: although it does not enumerate positive dispositions, the express disinheritance of Alfredo is itself a testamentary act that affects the disposition of the estate by operating to exclude Alfredo and thereby alter distribution among remaining heirs. The Court applied a liberal construction to holographic wills, recognizing that such wills are often prepared by non‑lawyers and that the testator’s intent should be given effect unless contrary to law or public policy.
Analysis: Disinheritance and Article 919
The Court examined the stated reasons for disinheritance and concluded that, taken as a whole, they could be considered maltreatment by Alfredo of the testator — one of the sufficient causes enumerated in Article 919. Accordingly, the disinheritance met statutory requirements insofar as the legal cause was specified in the instrument, satisfying Article 916’s requirement that disinheritance be effected through a will and specify cause.
Analysis: Preterition and Institution of Heir
On preterition under Article 854, the Court concluded that the compulsory heirs in the direct line were not preterited. The Court reasoned that the instrument did not institute a universal heir to the exclusion of other compulsory heirs; the mere mention of Virginia’s name did not operate as an institution of universal heir but rather appeared as part of the narrative and a witness reference. Article 841 supports the validity of a will even without an institution of an heir: testamentary dispositions may stand and the remainder passes to legal heirs. Therefore, preterition did not appear on the face of the instrument sufficient to annul the institution of heir (which, here, was not made) or to render the document intrinsically void for probate purposes.
Prio
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 228127)
Citation and Court
- Reported at 538 Phil. 40, Second Division, G.R. Nos. 140371-72, decided November 27, 2006.
- Decision authored by Justice Azcuna; concurred in by Puno (Chairperson), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Garcia, JJ.
- Petition filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court (certiorari), with application for writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order.
Nature of the Petition and Reliefs Sought
- Petition for certiorari seeking nullification of two orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 21, Manila, dated August 10, 1999 and October 14, 1999.
- Relief sought: annulment of RTC dismissal of petition for probate on ground of preterition in consolidated special proceedings SP. Proc. No. 98-90870 (intestate settlement) and SP. Proc. No. 99-93396 (probate of will), and reinstatement and hearing of probate proceedings; suspension of intestate proceedings until termination of probate proceedings.
Relevant Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioners: Dy Yieng Seangio, Barbara D. Seangio and Virginia D. Seangio.
- Private respondents/petitioners in intestate case: Alfredo D. Seangio, Alberto D. Seangio, Elisa D. Seangio-Santos (moved to be special administrator and guardian ad litem for Dy Yieng), Victor D. Seangio, Alfonso D. Seangio, Shirley D. Seangio-Lim, Betty D. Seangio-Obas, and James D. Seangio.
- RTC proceedings:
- Sept. 21, 1988: Private respondents filed petition for settlement of intestate estate of Segundo Seangio, docketed SP. Proc. No. 98-90870, praying for appointment of Elisa D. Seangio-Santos as special administrator and guardian ad litem of petitioner Dy Yieng.
- Petitioners opposed intestate petition and averred existence of a holographic will dated Sept. 20, 1995.
- Apr. 7, 1999: Petition for probate of holographic will filed by petitioners, docketed SP. Proc. No. 99-93396.
- May 29, 1999: The two proceedings were consolidated on petitioners’ motion.
- July 1, 1999: Private respondents moved to dismiss the probate petition on grounds that the instrument does not contain a disposition of the decedent’s estate and that preterition results, rendering the will intrinsically void.
- Aug. 10, 1999: RTC dismissed SP. Proc. No. 99-93396 for preterition; denied motion to suspend intestate proceedings.
- Oct. 14, 1999: RTC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Petitioners elevated the matter via certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Facts Material to the Controversy
- Decedent: Segundo C. Seangio.
- Petitioners asserted:
- Dy Yieng Seangio was in full possession of faculties and still living when proceedings commenced.
- Decedent executed a general power of attorney in favor of Virginia to manage business affairs; Virginia is a CPA and most qualified to serve as administrator.
- Decedent left a holographic will dated September 20, 1995, disinheriting eldest son Alfredo Seangio for cause.
- Private respondents’ position:
- The document constitutes only an act of disinheritance of Alfredo and contains no disposition of property; it mentions only Alfredo and Virginia and omits other compulsory heirs, resulting in preterition under Article 854 of the Civil Code and annulment of the institution of heir.
- While probate courts ordinarily rule on extrinsic validity, they argued the court is not barred from examining intrinsic validity where the instrument is clearly intrinsically void on its face.
The Document Presented as Holographic Will (as quoted in records)
- The instrument was introduced in the record and quoted verbatim. It is captioned and written in Filipino as follows (quoted in the source):
- Kasulatan sa pag-aalis ng mana Tantunin ng sinuman Ako si Segundo Seangio Filipino may asawa naninirahan sa 465-A Flores St., Ermita, Manila at nagtatalay ng maiwanag na pag-iisip at disposisyon ay tahasan at hayagang inaalisan ko ng lahat at anumang mana ang paganay kong anak na si Alfredo Seangio dahil siya ay naging lapastangan sa akin at isan beses siya ng sasalita ng masama harapan ko at mga kapatid niya na si Virginia Seangio labis kong kinasama ng loob ko at sasabe rin ni Alfredo sa akin na ako nasa ibabaw gayon gunit daratin ang araw na ako nasa ilalim siya at siya nasa ibabaw. Labis kong ikinasama ng loob ko ang gamit ni Alfredo ng akin pagalan para makapagutang na kuarta siya at kanya asawa na si Merna de los Reyes sa China Bangking Corporation na millon pesos at hindi ng babayad at hindi ng babayad ito ay nagdulot sa aking ng malaking kahihiya sa mga may-ari at stockholders ng China Banking. At ikinagalit ko pa rin ang pagkuha ni Alfredo at ng kanyang asawa na mga custome[r] ng Travel Center of the Philippines na pinagasiwaan ko at ng anak ko si Virginia. Dito ako nagalit din kaya gayon ayoko na bilanin si Alfredo ng anak ko at hayanan kong inaalisan ng lahat at anoman mana na si Alfredo at si Alfredo Seangio ay hindi ko siya anak at hindi siya makoha mana. Nila[g]daan ko ngayon ika 20 ng Setyembre 1995 sa longsod ng Manila sa harap ng tatlong saksi. (signed) Segundo Seangio Nilagdaan sa harap namin (signed) Dy Yieng Seangio (signed) Unang Saksi ikalawang saksi (signed) ikatlong saksi
- Record shows the document was dated, signed and written by Segundo in his own handwriting; parties did not contest authenticity except on the ground of preterition.
Motion to Dismiss Probate Proceedings and RTC Ruling
- Private respondents’ motion to dismiss argued:
- The purported holographic will lacks disposition of property; mentions only Alfredo and Virginia and omits other compulsory heirs; Article 854 (preterition) applies and annuls the institution of heir, rendering will intrinsically void.
- The court, though limited to extrinsic validity, could consider intrinsic invalidity where will appears void on its face.
- Petitioners’ opposition to the motion contended:
- Probate court authority is generally limited to extrinsic validity (due execution, testamentary capacity, formalities).
- Disinheritance constitutes a disposition of estate; preterition rule does not apply because there is no institution of heir excluding compulsory heirs.
- Testate proceedings should