Title
Morales vs. Olondriz
Case
G.R. No. 198994
Decision Date
Feb 3, 2016
A will's preterition of a compulsory heir annulled the institution of heirs, rendering it void and leading to intestate succession. The RTC's decision was upheld, affirming no grave abuse of discretion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-17314)

Petitions Filed and Docketing

Respondent heirs, believing the decedent died intestate, filed a petition for partition and appointment of a special administrator (Sp. Proc. No. SP-03-0060); the RTC initially appointed Alfonso Jr. as special administrator. Separately, Morales filed a petition for probate of a purported will dated July 23, 1991, and for appointment as special administratrix (Sp. Proc. No. SP-03-0069). Both matters were raffled to the same branch and eventually consolidated by the RTC.

Material Provisions of the Will

The will designated Iris Morales Olondriz as executor/administrator and divided the decedent’s entire estate into six equal parts among: (1) Iris Morales Olondriz, (2) Alfonso Juan Olondriz, Jr., (3) Alejandro Olondriz, (4) Isabel Olondriz, (5) Angelo Olondriz, and (6) Maria Ortegas Olondriz (the decedent’s wife). The will notably omitted Francisco Javier Maria Bautista Olondriz (the decedent’s illegitimate son).

RTC Proceedings, Evidence, and Interim Orders

The respondent heirs opposed Morales’s probate petition and moved to dismiss on grounds of Francisco’s preterition. The RTC consolidated the two proceedings and ordered an evidentiary hearing on preterition. Morales repeatedly postponed and ultimately failed to appear at scheduled hearings, waiving her opportunity to present evidence regarding inter vivos donations or advances on legitime to Francisco. The RTC suspended intestate proceedings to give way to probate, then later—after finding preterition—revoked the Letters of Administration issued to Alfonso Jr., granted his reinstatement as administrator, and ordered the estate to proceed intestate. An inhibition and transfer to a different branch occurred during the proceedings.

Issues Presented on Review

The key issues raised by Morales included: (1) whether probate of a decedent’s will is mandatory and the RTC was barred from reverting to intestacy after previously ordering probate; (2) whether the probate court may examine the intrinsic validity of a will; and (3) whether there was in fact preterition given the claim that Francisco had received a house and lot inter vivos as an advance on his legitime. The respondent heirs contended the RTC properly exercised jurisdiction, that Morales failed to produce evidence, and that Francisco’s preterition annulled the institution of heirs, thus opening intestacy.

Governing Legal Doctrines on Preterition

Preterition is the total omission of a compulsory heir in the direct line from a will—either by failing to name or to institute the heir or by failing to assign any part of the estate without express disinheritance—resulting in tacit deprivation of the heir’s legitime. Article 854 of the Civil Code provides that preterition or omission of compulsory heirs in the direct line annul the institution of heirs, although devises and legacies remain valid insofar as they are not inofficious. Precedent cited in the decision (e.g., Nuguid, Aznar) establishes that preterition requires a total omission and that such preterition can lead to total intestacy where no valid dispositive provisions survive.

Application of Preterition Doctrine to the Case Facts

The will omitted Francisco, who as an illegitimate son is a compulsory heir in the direct line. Morales had the evidentiary opportunity to show that Francisco received inter vivos donations or legitime advances that would preclude a finding of preterition but failed to appear and present evidence at the hearings, thereby waiving that opportunity. The RTC found, based on the evidence presented by respondent heirs and Morales’s absence, that Francisco was preterited. The CA affirmed that finding. Given the omission and absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts reasonably concluded preterition occurred and annulled the institution of heirs.

Scope of Probate Proceedings: Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Validity

The general rule limits probate proceedings to questions of extrinsic validity—formal execution and due execution—rather than intrinsic validity (substantive testamentary provisions). However, this rule is not absolute. Exceptional circumstances that make probate an idle ceremony allow the probate court to examine intrinsic validity. Jurisprudence cited (e.g., Nepomuceno, Nuguid, Balanay) recognizes that when practical considerations warrant doing so, a probate court may pass upon intrinsic validity to avoid superfluous proceedings.

Rationale for Ordering the Estate to Proceed Intestate

Because the will contained no specific legitime-preserving devises or legacies and Francisco’s preterition annulled the institution of heirs, the decedent’s testamentary dispositions were rendered null insofar as they failed to preserve compulsory legitimes. The annulment

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms