2. Seangio v. Reyes GR# 140371-72/Nov.

27, 2006

Facts:
On September 21, 1988, private respondents filed a petition for the settlement of the
intestate estate of the late Segundo Seangio. Petitioners Dy Yieng, Barbara and Virginia, all
surnamed Seangio, opposed the petition. They contended that: 1) Dy Yieng is still very healthy and
in full command of her faculties; 2) the deceased Segundo executed a general power of attorney in
favor of Virginia giving her the power to manage and exercise control and supervision over his
business in the Philippines; 3) Virginia is the most competent and qualified to serve as the
administrator of the estate of Segundo because she is a certified public accountant; and, 4)
Segundo left a holographic will, dated September 20, 1995, disinheriting one of the private
respondents, Alfredo Seangio, for cause. In view of the purported holographic will, petitioners
averred that in the event the decedent is found to have left a will, the intestate proceedings are to
be automatically suspended and replaced by the proceedings for the probate of the will. On April 7,
1999, a petition for the probate of the holographic will of Segundo, was filed by petitioners before
the RTC.
The document that petitioners refer to as Segundos holographic will is entitled as: Kasulatan sa
pag-aalis ng mana

Issue:
Whether or not there is preterition in the case at bar

Ruling:
The Court believes that the compulsory heirs in the direct line were not preterited in the will.
It was, in the Courts opinion, Segundos last expression to bequeath his estate to all his
compulsory heirs, with the sole exception of Alfredo. Also, Segundo did not institute an heir to the
exclusion of his other compulsory heirs. The mere mention of the name of one of the petitioners,
Virginia, in the document did not operate to institute her as the universal heir. Her name was
included plainly as a witness to the altercation between Segundo and his son, Alfredo. Considering
that the questioned document is Segundos holographic will, and that the law favors testacy over
intestacy, the probate of the will cannot be dispensed with. Article 838 of the Civil Code provides
that no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance
with the Rules of Court. Thus, unless the will is probated, the right of a person to dispose of his
property may be rendered nugatory.

Adjudication:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED

3. Guy v. CA GR# 163707/Sept. 15, 2006

Facts:
1. The special proceeding case concerns the settlement of the estate of Sima Wei (a.k.a. Rufina
Guy Susim). Private-respondents Karen and Kamille alleged that they are the acknowledged
illegitimate children of Sima Wei who died intestate. The minors were represented by their mother
Remedios Oanes who filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration before the RTC of
Makati City.

2. Petitioner who is one of the children of the deceased with his surviving spouse, filed for the
dismissal of the petition alleging that his father left no debts hence, his estate may be settled
without the issuance of letters administration. The other heirs filed a joint motion to dismiss alleging
that the certification of non-forum shopping should have been signed by Remedios and not by
counsel.

3. Petitioners further alleged that the claim has been paid and waived by reason of a Release of
Claim or waiver stating that in exchange for financial and educational assistance from the
petitioner, Remedios and her minor children discharged the estate of the decedent from any and all
liabilities.

4. The lower court denied the joint motion to dismiss as well as the supplemental motion ruling that
the mother is not the duly constituted guardian of the minors hence, she could not have validly
signed the waiver. It also rejected the petitioner's objections to the certificate of non-forum
shopping. The Court of Appeals affirmed the orders of the lower court. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not a guardian can validly repudiate the inheritance the wards

RULING: No, repudiation amounts to alienation of property and parents and guardians must
necessarily obtain judicial approval. repudiation of inheritance must pass the court's scrutiny in
order to protect the best interest of the ward. Not having been authorized by the court, the release
or waiver is therefore void. Moreover, the private-respondents could not have waived their
supposed right as they have yet to prove their status as illegitimate children of the decedent. It
would be inconsistent to rule that they have waived a right which, according to the petitioner, the
latter do not have.

As to the jurisdiction of the court to determine the heirs

The court is not precluded to receive evidence to determine the filiation of the claimants even if the
original petition is for the issuance of letters administration. Its jurisdiction extends to matters
collateral and incidental to the settlement of the estate, with the determination of heirship included.
As held in previous decision, two causes of action may be brought together in one complaint, one a
claim for recognition, and the other to claim inheritance.