Trinidad vs. Trinidad

Preterition under Article 854 of the Civil Code occurs when compulsory heirs in the direct line are totally omitted from inheriting, which annuls the institution of heirs but leaves valid any devises and legacies that do not impair the legitimes. Where the only property bequeathed to compulsory heirs does not belong to the testator, it results in their total omission. However, the will is not rendered entirely void; other provisions must be evaluated for inofficiousness.

Wenceslao B. Trinidad executed a will bequeathing properties, including a Pico de Loro condominium unit, to his wife (Nelfa) and all his children (from two marriages). After his death, Nelfa filed for probate. The children from the first marriage opposed, claiming the condominium unit was owned by a third party (their cousin), thus they would receive nothing, constituting preterition.

• Filed in RTC (Special Proceeding Case No. 16-22665-CV, Pasay City).
• RTC dismissed the petition for probate on the ground of preterition.
• Appealed to CA (CA-G.R. CV No. 113463).
• CA affirmed the RTC decision.
• Elevated to SC via Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

• Wenceslao Trinidad executed a notarial will on August 24, 2014, and died on March 4, 2016.
• In the will, he bequeathed the Pico de Loro Condominium Unit to his wife and all his children (seven from two marriages) in equal shares.
• The condominium unit was the only property bequeathed to the children from his first marriage (respondents).
• Evidence showed the condominium unit was registered under the name of Monique T. Toda (a niece), not Wenceslao.
• Petitioners (second wife and her children) alleged an express trust but failed to prove it.
• Petitioners also alleged respondents received advances on their legitime (PHP 10M each) during Wenceslao's lifetime, but the evidence (a handwritten list) was not authenticated.

• The condominium unit was purchased by Wenceslao and held in trust by Monique; thus, Wenceslao was the beneficial owner.
• Respondents were not preterited because they received substantial advances (PHP 10M each) during Wenceslao's lifetime.
• The will should be probated as it validly disposes of the testator's properties.

• The condominium unit did not belong to Wenceslao; it was registered to Monique.
• Since the condominium unit was the only property bequeathed to them, they would receive nothing, resulting in total omission (preterition).
• The petition for probate should be dismissed due to preterition, which annuls the institution of heirs.

• Procedural Issues: N/A.
• Substantive Issues:
  1. Whether the CA erred in affirming the dismissal of the probate petition on the ground of preterition.
  2. Whether the devise of the condominium unit is valid, and if not, whether it constitutes preterition of the respondents.
  3. Whether the other devises and legacies in the will remain valid despite preterition.

• Procedural: N/A.
• Substantive:
  1. Partly meritorious. The SC agreed that preterition occurred but modified the lower courts' outright dismissal.
  2. Yes. The devise of the condominium unit is void because Wenceslao did not own it (nemo dat quod non habet). Since it was the only property bequeathed to respondents, they were totally omitted, resulting in preterition under Article 854.
  3. Yes. Preterition annuls the institution of heirs but does not automatically invalidate the entire will. The other devises and legacies (to the second wife and her children) remain valid insofar as they are not inofficious. The case is remanded to the RTC to determine if these provisions impair the legitimes of the preterited heirs and for reduction if necessary.

• Preterition (Article 854, Civil Code) — The total omission of a compulsory heir in the direct line from the will, without express disinheritance, which annuls the institution of heirs but leaves devises/legacies valid if not inofficious. Applied here because respondents received nothing from the will.
• Exception to Extrinsic Validity Rule (Nuguid Doctrine) — A probate court may pass upon the intrinsic validity of a will before probate when practical considerations demand it (e.g., to avoid futile proceedings). Applied because the issue of preterition (intrinsic validity) was squarely raised and would inevitably recur.
• Express Trust (Article 1444, Civil Code) — Must be clearly intended and proven; cannot be assumed from vague declarations. Petitioners failed to prove an express trust over the condominium unit.
• Nemo dat quod non habet — One cannot give what one does not have. The testator could not validly bequeath property he did not own.

• "Preterition consists in the omission of a compulsory heir from the will, either because he is not named or, although he is named as a father, son, etc., he is neither instituted as an heir nor assigned any part of the estate without expressly being disinherited — tacitly depriving the heir of his legitime." (Citing Morales v. Olondriz)
• "The creation of an express trust must be firmly shown; it cannot be assumed from loose and vague declarations or circumstances capable of other interpretations." (Citing Goyanko, Jr. v. UCPB)
• "Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is probated, the court should meet the issue." (Citing Nuguid v. Nuguid)

• Nuguid v. Nuguid — Established the exception allowing probate courts to rule on intrinsic validity when practical considerations demand it.
• Morales v. Olondriz — Defined preterition and its effects; applied by analogy where a compulsory heir was omitted and no evidence showed they received anything outside the will.
• Neri v. Akutin — Differentiated institution of heirs from legacies/devisees; held preterition does not automatically result in total intestacy if there are valid legacies/devisees.
• Goyanko, Jr. v. United Coconut Planters Bank — Defined the requisites for proving an express trust.

• Article 854, Civil Code — Defines preterition and its effect (annuls institution of heirs; devises/legacies valid if not inofficious).
• Article 930, Civil Code — A legacy/devise of a thing belonging to another is void if the testator erroneously believed it was his.
• Article 1444, Civil Code — No particular words required to create an express trust, but intent must be clear.
• Article 781, Civil Code — Only property and transmissible rights existing at death form part of the inheritance.
• Articles 911-913, Civil Code — Rules for reduction of devises/legacies when they impair legitimes.

• J. Caguioa (Concurring) — Emphasized that preterition requires total omission (nothing from the will, donations, or intestate succession). Expounded on Articles 930 and 931, clarifying that the devise of the condominium unit is void under Article 930 because the testator erroneously believed he owned it. Agreed with remand to determine if other devises/legacies impair legitimes, noting the need to ascertain the nature of the "Family Home" property.