Case Summary (G.R. No. 47799)
Trial Court Findings on Preterition
The trial court found no clear proof that Eleuterio, Rosario, or Celerina received property from their father; Agripino and Agapita occupied public lands not belonging to the estate; Getulia’s heirs received no share. Cash advances to some first‐marriage children (P1,000, P500, P155, P120) were documented but their status as legacies or loans awaited separate proceedings. The court declared total intestacy, annulling the institution of heirs.
Court of Appeals Determination
Upon review of inventory and tax declarations, the Court of Appeals agreed that no estate property remained advanced to the first‐marriage children. It rejected claims of any significant donation, noting jointly assessed parcels still under estate administration. It held the will pretermitted forced heirs, invoking Art. 814 to annul the institution of heirs and open intestate succession.
Legal Issue: Preterition under Civil Code Article 814
Article 814 provides that omission of forced heirs in the direct line annuls the institution of heirs but preserves legacies and mejoras to the extent they are not inofficious. Since the will universally titled all property to second‐marriage children without expressly disinheriting first‐marriage children, the preterition triggered total nullity of that institution, necessitating intestate succession among all forced heirs.
Relationship with Articles 817 and 851
Respondents urged application of Art. 817 (general reduction of dispositions infringing legitime) or Art. 851 (partial annulment for unjust disinheritance). The Court distinguished these general provisions from the specific remedial rule in Art. 814, which, as a special statute, prevails over the general rule of Art. 817. Art. 851 governs wrongful disinheritance, not preterition.
Statutory Interpretation and Jurisprudential Support
Drawing on treatises by Manresa and Sánchez Román, the Court emphasized that Art. 814’s specific nullity of heir‐institution and its saving clause for legacies/mejoras must be strictly applied. Treating the universal bequest as a legacy would render Art. 814 and 851 meaningless and contravene rules of statutory construction favoring specific over general provisions.
Effect of Code of Civil Procedure and Repealer Act
Though the Civil Procedure Code replaced Spanish distinctions between heredero and legatario, Act 2141 repealed procedural sections that had amended Arts. 814 and 851, restoring their full force. The Court found no conflict with civil‐procedural rules on estates, so Art. 814 remains o
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 47799)
Facts of the Case
- Testator Agripino Neri y Chaves executed a will leaving “all his property by universal title” to the children of his second marriage (respondents), omitting altogether his children by his first marriage (petitioners).
- Clause 8 of the will declared that the children of the first marriage “have already received their shares” and that any loans they owed were condoned.
- The children by the first marriage asserted they had received partial gifts or loans, but could not show an equal share in the estate’s value.
Procedural History
- The Court of First Instance annulled the institution of heirs and declared a total intestacy, appointing a special administratrix to recover donations.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the annulment of heir institution, finding no property had been advanced to the first‐marriage children.
- Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing (1) no preterition occurred because first‐marriage children received their shares, and (2) if preterition happened, it should only reduce—not annul—the testamentary bequest.
Issues Presented
- Whether the testator’s will preterited (omitted) forced heirs in the direct line, thereby invoking article 814 of the Civil Code and annulling the institution of heirs.
- If preterition applies, whether the effect is total nullity of heir institution and opening of full intestacy, or merely reduction of the bequest under articles 817 or 851.
Court of Appeals’ Findings
- All estate property remained in the administrator’s possession; none had been distributed to first‐marriage children or their heirs.
- No parcel or asset had been lawfully transferred by universal title or donation to the first‐marriage children.
- Loans recorded against first‐marriage children (P1,000; P500; P155; P120) did not constitute their legitime shares.
Supreme Court Majority Decision
- The CPLR and Civil Code provisions governing preterition were examined; the Court held that article 814 applies whenever a testator omits one or more forced heirs in the direct line.
- Article 814’s language “‘shall annul the institution of heirs’” means total nullity of that institution; legacies and betterments survive only insofar as they are not inofficious.
- Articles 817 (general reduction of excessive dispositions) and 851 (partial nullity in unjust disinheritance) are inapplicable to cases of preterition, which is specifically governed by article 814.
- Legacies and improvements (“mejoras”) remain valid if they do not exceed the permissible portion (one‐third libre disposición and one‐third mejora).
- The will contained no express legacies or mejoras; the entire estate was left by universal title to second‐marriage children, so annulling the heir institution yields a total intestacy.
- Repeals in the Code of Civil Procedure restoring articles 814 and 851 to full force, and the absence of inconsistency between Civil Code and Procedure Code, affirm the continuing effect of article 814.
- Motion for reconsideration denied; full intestate succession declared.
Concurring Opinion (Justice Ozaeta)
- Agreed that article 814 applies but noted that at least the grandchildren of the predeceased daughter Getulia were clearly omitted and are forced heirs by representation.
- Emphasized the testator’s intent in clauses 7–8 was to treat first‐marriage descendants equally, implying no purposeful discrimination.
- Recognized possible good‐faith mistake about prior gifts but found uncontroverted that Getulia’s line received nothing except a condoned P155 debt.
- Concluded that preterition as to Getulia’s children opened intestacy only as to their portion; other provisions might remain, but sin