Acain vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

Preterition of a compulsory heir in the direct line (such as a legally adopted child) annuls the institution of universal heirs and results in total intestacy, divesting the instituted heirs of legal standing to petition for the probate of the will.

The case involves the probate of a will that instituted universal heirs while completely omitting the testator's surviving spouse and legally adopted daughter, raising the issue of whether such omission constitutes preterition and how it affects the probate proceedings and the standing of the named heirs.

• Original Filing: RTC of Cebu City, Branch XIII, Special Proceedings No. 591 ACEB (Petition for Probate of Will)
• Lower Court Decision: Denied the oppositors' motion to dismiss (dated Jan 21, 1985); denied motion for reconsideration (Feb 15, 1985)
• Appeal: Oppositors filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction with the SC, which referred it to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), docketed as AC-G.R. SP No. 05744
• IAC Decision: August 30, 1985 — Granted the petition, ordering the RTC to dismiss Special Proceedings No. 591 ACEB; denied motion for reconsideration on October 23, 1985
• SC Action: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the IAC decision

• The Will: Nemesio Acain executed a will in Bisaya on February 17, 1960, with an English translation submitted without objection.
• Testamentary Dispositions: The will appointed an executor and provided for burial rites and payment of debts. Regarding his property, Nemesio left his entire share of conjugal properties to his brother Segundo. If Segundo predeceased him, the share would go to Segundo's children (including petitioner Constantino and his siblings).
• The Omission: The will completely omitted Nemesio's widow, Rosa Diongson, and his legally adopted daughter, Virginia A. Fernandez. Neither was instituted as an heir nor expressly disinherited.
• Death and Probate Petition: Segundo predeceased Nemesio. After Nemesio's death, Constantino filed a petition for probate of the will, claiming standing as an instituted heir.
• Motion to Dismiss: The widow and adopted daughter moved to dismiss the probate petition on the grounds that Constantino had no legal capacity, he was merely a universal heir, and they had been preterited. The RTC denied the motion.

• Certiorari and prohibition were not the proper remedies to challenge the RTC's denial of the motion to dismiss; appeal was the proper route.
• The probate court's authority is limited to the extrinsic validity of the will; it cannot pass upon intrinsic validity before admitting the will to probate.
• The will is valid and must be admitted to probate; Article 854 on preterition applies only to compulsory heirs in the direct line, and the widow and adopted daughter do not fall under this classification.
• Dicat testator et maneat lex — the testator's explicit intention must be respected.
• As an instituted universal heir, he has the legal interest and standing to file the probate petition.
• Article 854 of the Civil Code is unconstitutional as a bill of attainder.

• Petitioner has no legal capacity to institute the probate proceedings.
• Petitioner is merely a universal heir.
• The widow and the adopted daughter have been preterited, invoking Article 854 of the Civil Code.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether certiorari and prohibition were the proper remedies to challenge the RTC's denial of the motion to dismiss.
  • Whether a probate court can pass upon the intrinsic validity of a will before resolving its extrinsic validity.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the omission of the surviving spouse and the legally adopted daughter constitutes preterition under Article 854 of the Civil Code.
  • Whether the petitioner has legal standing to file the probate petition given the alleged preterition.

• Procedural:
  • The SC held that certiorari and prohibition were properly availed of. While the general rule limits probate courts to examining extrinsic validity, an exception exists where the will is intrinsically void on its face. Forcing the oppositors to undergo a full probate trial for a will that is clearly intrinsically void would be an exercise in futility and a waste of time and resources. The RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the case outright.
• Substantive:
  • The omission of the legally adopted daughter constitutes preterition, but the omission of the widow does not. Under Article 39 of P.D. No. 603, adoption gives the adopted child the same rights as a legitimate child, making her a compulsory heir in the direct line. The widow, though a compulsory heir, is not in the direct line, so her omission does not trigger Article 854.
  • The preterition of the adopted daughter annuls the institution of heirs. Because the petitioner and his siblings were instituted as universal heirs without any legacies or devises in the will, the annulment of their institution results in total intestacy.
  • Consequently, the petitioner is no longer an heir and has no legal standing to petition for the probate of the will. Special Proceedings No. 591 ACEB was properly dismissed.

• Preterition — The omission in the testator's will of one, some, or all compulsory heirs in the direct line, either because they are not mentioned, or though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor expressly disinherited. Applied to annul the institution of heirs because the adopted daughter, a compulsory heir in the direct line, was completely omitted.
• Exception to the Extrinsic Validity Rule in Probate — While probate courts generally only determine extrinsic validity, they can pass upon the intrinsic validity of a will even before probate if the will is intrinsically void on its face. Applied to justify the early dismissal of the probate petition based on preterition.
• Effect of Preterition — Preterition annuls the institution of heirs. If the institution of universal heirs is annulled and there are no other testamentary dispositions (legacies/devisees), total intestacy results.

• Article 854, Civil Code — Governs preterition; provides that the omission of compulsory heirs in the direct line annuls the institution of heirs. Applied to annul the institution of the universal heirs due to the omission of the adopted daughter.
• Article 39, P.D. No. 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code) — Provides that adoption gives the adopted person the same rights and duties as a legitimate child. Applied to classify the adopted daughter as a compulsory heir in the direct line for purposes of preterition.
• Article 782, Civil Code — Defines an heir as a person called to the succession either by the provision of a will or by operation of law. Applied to determine that the petitioner lost his status as an heir upon the annulment of the institution.