June
19, 1982
Ponente:
Melencio-Herrera, J.
FACTS:
· On May 21, 1977, Clemencia Aseneta, single,
died at the Manila Sanitarium Hospital at age 81. She left a holographic will,
the pertinent portions of which are quoted hereunder:
xxx xxx xxx
It is my
will that all my real properties located in Manila, Makati, Quezon City, Albay
and Legaspi City and all my personal properties shagllbe inherited upon my
death by Dra. Soledad L. Maninang with whose family I have lived continuously
for around the last 30 years now. Dra. Maninang and her husband Pamping have
been kind to me. ... I have found peace and happiness with them even during the
time when my sisters were still alive and especially now when I am now being
troubled by my nephew Bernardo and niece Salvacion. I am not incompetent as
Nonoy would like me to appear. I know what is right and wrong. I can decide for
myself. I do not consider Nonoy as my adopted son. He has made me do things
against my will.
xxx xxx xxx
·
On June 9, 1977, Soledad Maninang filed a
Petition for probate of the Will of the decedent with the Court of First
Instance-Branch IV, Quezon City (hereinafter referred to as the Testate Case).
·
On July 25, 1977, Bernardo Aseneta, who, as
the adopted son, claims to be the sole heir of decedent Clemencia Aseneta,
instituted intestate proceedings with the Court of First Instance-Branch XI,
Pasig, Rizal ( hereinafter referred to as the Intestate Case).
·
On December 23, 1977, the Testate and
Intestate Cases were ordered consolidated.
·
Bernardo then filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Testate Case on the ground that the holographic will was null and void because
he, as the only compulsory heir, was preterited and, therefore, intestacy
should ensue.
·
In her Opposition to said Motion to Dismiss,
petitioner Soledad averred that it is still the rule that in a case for probate
of a Will, the Court's area of inquiry is limited to an examination of and
resolution on the extrinsic validity of the will; and that respondent Bernardo
was effectively disinherited by the decedent.
·
CFI:
Dismissed the Testate Case upon its finding that Bernardo was preterited. The
same Order appointed Bernardo as the administrator of the intestate estate of
the deceased Clemencia Aseneta "considering that he is a forced heir of
said deceased while oppositor Soledad Maninang is not, and considering further
that Bernardo Aseneta has not been shown to be unfit to perform the duties of
the trust."
·
Maninang resorted to a certiorari petition
before the CA, alleging that the CFI exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the
Orders of dismissal of the Testate Case and denial of reconsideration.
·
CA: Denied
certiorari and ruled that the CFI's order of dismissal was final in nature as
it finally disposed of the Testate Case and, therefore, appeal was the proper
remedy, not certiorari.
·
Hence, the instant petition.
RULING:
Whether
the CFI acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it dismissed the Testate
Case. – YES.
·
Generally, the probate of a Will is mandatory.
No will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and
allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. The law enjoins the probate of the Will and public policy requires it,
because unless the Will is probated and notice thereof given to the whole
world, the right of a person to dispose of his property by Will may be rendered
nugatory.
·
The CFI erred on two aspects, viz:
Normally,
the probate of a Will does not look into its intrinsic validity. In the present
case, however, the CFI dismissed the Testate Case and appointed Bernardo as
administrator on the sole basis that "Bernardo is a forced heir of the
deceased while the oppositor Soledad Maninang is not."
·
Opposition to the intrinsic validity or
legality of the provisions of the will cannot be entertained in Probate
proceeding because its only purpose is merely to determine if the will has been
executed in accordance with the requirements of the law.
·
The authentication of a will decides no other
question than such as those upon the capacity of the testator and the
compliance with those requisites or solemnities which the law prescribes for
the validity of wills. It does not determine nor even by implication prejudge
the validity of the provisions, these may be impugned as being vicious or null,
notwithstanding its authentication. The questions relating to these points
remain entirely unaffected, and may be raised even after the will has been
authenticated.
·
The cases cited by Bernardo – Neri vs. Akutin and Balanay vs. Hon. Martinez – are exceptions to the rule that the
probate of a Will does not look into its intrinsic validity. Sinc ethese cases
contain different factual milieus, they are therefore not applicable in the
instant case.
·
In sum: In a proceeding for the probate of a
will, the Court's area of inquiry is limited to an examination of, and
resolution on, the extrinsic validity of the will, the due execution thereof,
the testatrix's testamentary capacity and the compliance with the requisites or
solemnities prescribed by law. The intrinsic validity of the will normally
comes only after the court has declared that the will has been duly authenticated.
However, where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of
the will be passed upon, even before it is probated, the Court should meet that
issue.
Preterition
and disinheritance are two totally different concepts with different effects.
·
The conclusion of the CFI's order was that
Bernardo has been preterited. However, the SC believes that from the face of
the Will, that conclusion is not tenable.
·
It is important to determine whether an heir
was preterited or disinherited because the effects flowing from preterition are
totally different from those of disinheritance. Pretention shall annul the
institution of heir, while in disinheritance, the institution of heirs shall
also be annulled, but only "insofar as it may prejudice the person
disinherited."
·
But because the Testate Case has been
dismissed, the determination of that controversial issue has not been
thoroughly considered.
Whether
certiorari is the proper remedy to assail the CFI's order. – YES.
·
In view of the Court's finding that the CFI
judge had acted in excess of his jurisdiction in dismissing the Testate Case,
certiorari is a proper remedy. An act done by a Probate Court in excess of its
jurisdiction may be corrected by Certiorari.
·
And even assuming the existence of the remedy
of appeal, in the broader interests of justice, a petition for certiorari may
still be entertained, particularly where appeal would not afford speedy and
adequate relief.