Aznar v. Duncan G.R. No.

L-24365June 30, 1966

Facts:
Edward E. Christensen, a citizen of California with domicile in the Philippines, died leaving a will
executed on March 5, 1951. (In 1954) The will was admitted to probate by the CFI and it also
declared that Maria Helen Christensen Garcia was a natural child of the deceased. The decision
was appealed to the SC and was affirmed. (In 1963) another incident relative to the partition of
the deceased’s estate, the RTC approved the project submitted by the executor in accordance
with the provisions of the will, which said court found to be valid under the law of California. Helen
Garcia appealed from the order of approval and the SC reversed the ruling on the ground that the
validity of the provisions of the will should be governed by Philippine law.SC returned the case to
the lower court with instructions that the partition be made as provided by said law.
(In 1964) CFI issued an order approving the project of partition submitted by the executor wherein
the properties of the estate were divided equally between Maria Lucy Duncan, whom the testator
had expressly recognized in his will as his natural daughter and Helen Garcia, who had been
judicially declared as such after his death. Lucy Duncan appealed with the sole question of
whether the estate, after deducting the legacies, should pertain to her and to Helen Garcia in
equal shares or whether the inheritance of Lucy Duncan as instituted heir should merely reduced
to the extent necessary to cover the legitime of Helen Garcia, equivalent to ¼ of the entire estate.
RTC ruled and appellee now maintains that there has been preterition of Helen Garcia, a
compulsory heir in the direct line, resulting in the annulment of the institution of heir pursuant to
Article 854of the CC. Appellant contends that Helen Garcia is entitled only to her legitime, and
not to a share of the estate equal that of Lucy Duncan as if the succession were instestate. In the
will of the deceased, Helen Garcia was given a legacy of P3,600.00.
Issue:Whether or not there was preterition.
Ruling:No, there was no preterition. The solution (from three SC Spain decisions cited by
Manresa) was that the heir ask that the legitime be completed and not that the institution of heirs
be annulled entirely. This solution is more in consonance with the expressed wishes of the testator
in the present case as may be gathered very clearly from the provisions of his will. He refused to
acknowledge Helen Garcia as his natural daughter, and limited her share to a legacy of
P3,600.00. The fact that she was subsequently
declared judicially to possess such status is no reason to assume that had the judicial declaratio
n come during hislifetime his subjective attitude towards here would have undergone any change
and that he would have willed his estate equally to her and to Lucy Duncan, who alone was
expressly recognized by him. The testator did not entirely omit Helen Garcia but left her a legacy
of P3,600.00. Therefore, ¼ of the estate of the deceased which consisted of 399 shares of stocks
and a certain amount of cash descended to Helen Garcia as her legitime. Since she became the
owner of her share as of the moment of the death of the decedent, she is entitled to a
corresponding portion of all the fruits or increments thereof subsequently accruing. Therefore,
there is no preterition if the heir is given a legacy or devise.
ACAIN vs. IAC October 27, 1987
FACTS: Constantino filed a petition for the probate of the will of the late Nemesio. The will
provided that all his shares from properties he earned with his wife shall be given to his brother
Segundo (father of Constantino). In case Segundo dies, all such property shall be given to
Segundo’s children. Segundo pre-deceased Nemesio. The oppositors Virginia, a legally adopted
daughter of the deceased, and the latter's widow Rosa filed a motion to dismiss on the following
grounds: (1) the petitioner has no legal capacity to institute these proceedings; (2) he is merely a
universal heir and (3) the widow and the adopted daughter have been preterited.
ISSUE: Was there preterition?
HELD: Preterition consists in the omission in the testator's will of the forced heirs or anyone of
them either because they are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither
instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited. Insofar as the widow is concerned, Article
854 may not apply as she does not ascend or descend from the testator, although she is a
compulsory heir. Even if the surviving spouse is a compulsory heir, there is no preterition even if
she is omitted from the inheritance, for she is not in the direct line.
The same thing cannot be said of the other respondent Virginia, whose legal adoption by
the testator has not been questioned by petitioner. Adoption gives to the adopted person the same
rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of the adopter and makes the adopted person a
legal heir of the adopter. It cannot be denied that she was totally omitted and preterited in the will
of the testator and that both adopted child and the widow were deprived of at least their legitime.
Neither can it be denied that they were not expressly disinherited. This is a clear case of preterition
of the legally adopted child.
Preterition annuls the institution of an heir and annulment throws open to intestate
succession the entire inheritance. The only provisions which do not result in intestacy are the
legacies and devises made in the will for they should stand valid and respected, except insofar
as the legitimes are concerned. The universal institution of petitioner together with his brothers
and sisters to the entire inheritance of the testator results in totally abrogating the will because
the nullification of such institution of universal heirs - without any other testamentary disposition
in the will - amounts to a declaration that nothing at all was written.
In order that a person may be allowed to intervene in a probate proceeding he must have an
interest in the estate, or in the will, or in the property to be affected by it. Petitioner is not the
appointed executor, neither a devisee or a legatee there being no mention in the testamentary
disposition of any gift of an individual item of personal or real property he is called upon to receive.
At the outset, he appears to have an interest in the will as an heir. However, intestacy having
resulted from the preterition of respondent adopted child and the universal institution of heirs,
petitioner is in effect not an heir of the testator. He has no legal standing to petition for the probate
of the will left by the deceased.