Spec Pro

Case Digest
Kei
Seangio vs Reyes

Petition for Certiorari with application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injuction
and/or TRO.

Facts:
In 1988?, Respondents filed for the petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of
Segundo Seangio and praying for the appointment private respondent Elisa Seangio as
special administrator and guardian ad litem of Dy Yieng.

Petitioners Dy Yieng, Barbara and Virginia opposed the petition on the following
grounds:
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 1999, a petition for the probate of holographic will of Segundo was filed before the
RTC. Reiterating that probate proceedings take precedence and enjoy priority over
intestate proceedings.

Private respondents moved for the dismissal of the probate proceedings primarily on the
ground that eh will only show disinheritance of this eldest son, hence there is preterition.

RTC denied the Motion to suspend proceedings for lack of merit. MR was likewise
denied.

Petitioners argue the following:

1. Respondent judge did not comply with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76 of the Rules of
Court which respectively mandate the court to: a) fix the time and place for proving the
will when all concerned may appear to contest the allowance thereof, and cause notice
of such time and place to be published three weeks successively previous to the
appointed time in a newspaper of general circulation; and,
b) cause the mailing of said notice to the heirs, legatees and devisees of the testator
Segundo;
2. The holographic will does not contain any institution of an heir, but rather, as its title
clearly states, Kasulatan ng Pag-Aalis ng Mana, simply contains a disinheritance of a
compulsory heir. Thus, there is no preterition in the decedent’s will and the holographic
will on its face is not intrinsically void;
3. No one in the direct line of compulsory heirs was omitted
4. Respondent judge was mandated to proceed with the hearing of the testate case
5. The continuation of the intestate proceeding will work injustice to petitioners and will
render nugatory the disinheritance of Alfredo

Issue:
1. Whether the document executed by Segundo can be considered as a holographic
will?
 Spec Pro
Case Digest
Kei
2. Whether the holographic will pretirated or omitted an heir?
3. Was there a valid disinheritance?

Ruling:

A holographic will, as provided under Article 810 of the Civil Code, must be entirely
written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other
form, and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed.

Segundo’s document, although it may initially come across as a mere disinheritance

instrument, conforms to the formalities of a holographic will prescribed by law. It is
written, dated and signed by the hand of Segundo himself.

It is a fundamental principle that the intent or the will of the testator, expressed in the
form and within the limits prescribed by law, must be recognized as the supreme law in
succession. All rules of construction are designed to ascertain and give effect to that
intention. It is only when the intention of the testator is contrary to law, morals, or public
policy that it cannot be given effect.

The Court believes that the compulsory heirs in the direct line were not preterited in the
will. It was, in the Court’s opinion, Segundo’s 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.

The document, entitled Kasulatan ng Pag-Aalis ng Mana, unmistakably showed

Segundo’s intention of excluding his eldest son, Alfredo, as an heir to his estate for the
reasons that he cited therein. In effect, Alfredo was disinherited by Segundo. For
disinheritance to be valid, Article 916 of the Civil Code requires that the same must be
effected through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be specified. With regard to
the reasons for the disinheritance that were stated by Segundo in his document, the
Court believes that the incidents, taken as a whole, can be considered a form of
maltreatment of Segundo by his son, Alfredo, and that the matter presents a sufficient
cause for the disinheritance of a child or descendant under Article 919 of the Civil Code.

Petition is granted.