Heirs of Policronio Ureta v. Heirs of Liberato Ureta

G.R. Nos. 165748, 165930 September 14, 2011

Mendoza, J.

Facts:

- Background Facts: o In his lifetime, Alfonso Ureta begot 14 children. Among

these 14 belong the ascendants of the parties in this case Policronio and Liberato. Here, the descendants of Policronio are up against the rest of Alfonsos children and their descendants (including those of Liberato)

o When he was alive, Alfonso was well-off he owned several fishpens, a fishpond and a sari-sari store, among others.

o On October 1969, four of Alfonsos children (Policronio, Liberato, Prudencia, and Francisco), together with their father met in Liberatos house. Francisco, who was then a municipal judge suggested that to reduce the inheritance taxes, their father should make it appear that he sold some of his lands to his children. As such, Alfonso executed 4 deeds of sale covering parcels of land in favour of Policronio, Liberato, Prudencia, and his common-law wife, Valeriana dela Cruz.

o The dispute of this case is centered on the deed of sale in favour of Policronio which covered six parcels of land.

o Since the sale was only made to avoid taxes and that no monetary consideration was received, Alfonso continued to enjoy the lands.

o When Alfonso died, except for a portion of parcel 5, the rest of the parcels transferred to Policronio were never turned over to him. Instead, these were turned over to the administrators of Alfonsos estate Liberato, succeeded by Prudencia, and then by her daughter Carmencita Perlas.

o Subsequently, Alfonsos heirs executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, which included all the lands covered by the 4 deeds of sale executed by Alfonso for tax purposes.

o When the heirs of Policronio learned about the extra-judicial partition involving Alfonsos estate (Conrado, the Policronio heirs representative avers that he did not understand the partitions terms when he signed it) which excludes them, they sought to amicably settle the matter with the rest of the heirs of Alfonso.

o Given the futility of these talks, the heirs of Policronio filed a complaint for declaration of ownership, recovery of possession, annulment of documents, partition, and damages.

o Note: a will was never mentioned in this case - RTC Judgment

o In favour of the Heirs of Alfonso. According to the court, it was clearly established that the deed of sale was null and void. Policronios heirs never took possession of the involved lots and not even a single centavo was paid for consideration of the sale. Even assuming there was, the 2000 pesos for the six parcels of land the heirs of Policronio claimed that was paid to Alfonso was grossly inadequate.

o The deed of extrajudicial partition was declared valid by the RTC. The Court considered Conrados (the representative of the heirs of Policronio) claim that he did not understand the full significance of his signature when he signed in behalf of his co-heirs, as a gratuitous assertion. The RTC said that given his signature in all the pages of the extrajudicial partition and having appeared personally before the notary public, he is presumed to have understood the contents.

- Court of Appeals Judgment o Partially Granted the CA, disagreeing with the RTC,

declared that the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition was void. This decision of the CA was predicated on the incapacity of

one of the parties to give his consent to the contract. It held that for Conrado to bind his co-heirs to the partition, it was necessary that he acquired special powers of attorney from them pursuant to Article 1878 of the Civil Code.

o The CA said that the case should be remanded to determine the proper portions to be awarded to the heirs

Issue (relevant to preterition): WON the defense of ratification and/or preterition raised for the first time on appeal may be entertained

Held: No preterition in this case

Ratio:

- The heirs of Alfonso were of the position that the absence of the Heirs of Policronio in the partition or the lack of authority of their representative results, at the very least, in the preterition and not the invalidity of the entire deed of partition. They argue that remanding the case to determine proper inheritance is no longer necessary since the issue is purely legal. Conrado then, according to them, should just fully account for what he received and deliver to his co-heirs their respective shares in the inheritance.

- This cannot be given credence AT ALL - Their posited theory on preterition is no longer viable. Why?

BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WILL IN THIS CASE - Preterition has been defined as the total omission of a compulsory

heir from the disinheritance. It consists in the silence of the testator with regard to a compulsory heir, omitting him in the testatment, either by not mentioning him at all, or by not giving him anything in the hereditary property buy without expressly disinheriting him, even if he is mentioned in the will in the latter case

- Thus, PRETERITION IS A CONCEPT OF TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION. In the absence of a will, there can be no preterition.

Dy Yieng Seangio, Barbara Seangio and Virginia Seangio, petitioners vs. Hon. Amor Reyes (Judge - RTC NCR Branch 21 Manila), Alfredo Seangio, Alberto Seangio, Elisa Seangio-Santos, Victor Seangio, Alfonso Seangio, Shirley Seangio-Lim, Betty Seangio and James Seangio, respondents G.R. Nos. 140371-72 November 27, 2006 Azcuna, J.: Facts: o September 21, 1988

x The Respondent Seangios filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of the late Segundo Seangio They also prayed for the appointment of Elisa Seangio-

Santos as special administrator and guardian ad litem of Dy Yieng.

x Petitioner Seangios opposed the petition. They contend that: Dy Yieng is still very healthy and in full command of her

faculties The deceased Segundo executed a GPA in favor of Virginia

giving her the power to manage and exercise control over his business in the Philippines

Virginia is the most competent to serve as administrator of the estate because she is a CPA

Segundo left a holographic will disinheriting one of the respondent Seangios

Given the holographic will, the intestate proceedings are to be automatically suspended and replaced by the proceedings for the probate of the will

o April 7, 1999 x Petitioner Seangios file a petition for the probate of the

holographic will They said that probate proceedings should take

precedence over the intestate proceedings (the one by respondents above) because testate proceedings take precedence and enjoy priority over intestate proceedings

o July 1, 1999

x Respondent Seangios moved for the dismissal of the probate proceedings On the ground that the document purported to be the

holographic will does not contain and disposition of the estate of the deceased --- thus does not meet the definition of a will under Art. 783 of the CC

It only shows disinheritance, nothing else No compulsory heir was named nor instituted as heir,

devisee or legatee HENCE, there is preterition which would lead to

intestacy o Petitioner filed their opposition

x Generally, the authority of the probate court is limited only to a determination of the extrinsic validity of the will

x The ground raised by the respondent Seangios question the intrinsic and not the extrinsic validity of the will

x Disinheritance constitutes a disposition of the estate of a decedent

x The rule on preterition does not apply because Segundo's will does not constitute a universal heir or heirs to the exclusion of one or more compulsory heirs

o August 10, 1999 x RTC dismissed the petition for probate proceedings x A perusal of the "will" clearly shows that there is preterition

The only heirs mentioned are Alfredo and Virginia The other heirs being omitted, Art. 854 applies However, insofar as the widow Dy Yieng is concerned, 854

does not apply because she is not a compulsory heir in the direct line

x The lower court cited the case of Acain v. IAC which stated that tolerating a will when on its face, is intrinsically void, is an exercise of futility.

o Thus, this petition

Issues: o WON Respondent Judge erred in ruling on the intrinsic validity of the

will despite the settled rule that the authority of probate courts is limited only to a determination of its extrinsic validity (i.e. Due execution, testator's testamentary capacity, compliance with the requisites/solemnities prescribed by law)YES

o WON Judge erred in saying that preterition exists and that the will is void YES

o WON Judge erred in not suspending the proceedings in the intestate case despite the settled rule that testate proceedings take precedence over intestate proceedings YES

o WON there was a valid disinheritance YES

Held/Ratio: o Can the document executed by Segundo be considered a holographic

will? x Under art. 810 of the CC, a holographic will must be

Entirely written Dated and signed by the hand of the testator himself

x Segundo's document, though may it come as a mere disinheritance instrument, conforms to the formalities precribed by law - written, dated and signed by Segundo himself

x While it does not make an affirmative disposition of Segundo's property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless is an act of disposition itself The disinheritance of Alfredo results in the disposition in

favor of those who would succeed in the absence of Alfredo

x A WILL DOES NOT HAVE TO MAKE AN EXPLICIT DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY TO BE VALID

x The intent or will of the testator, so long as it is expressed in the form and within the limits prescribed by law, must be recognized as the supreme law in succession

x Holographic wills, being usually done by those not learned in the law, should be construed more liberally than the ones drawn by experts

o With regard to the issue on preterition x The Court believes that the compulsory heirs in the direct line

were not preterited Segundo did not institute an heir to the exclusion of his

compulsory heirs

The mere mention of the name of one of the petitioners, Virginia, did not operate to institute her as a universal heir - included plainly as a witness

o Considering that the document is Segundo's will and that the law favors testacy over intestacy, the probate of the will cannot be dispensed with - thus, the testate proceedings for the settlement of the estate takes precedence over intestate proceedings for the same purpose.

o On the issue of preterition x The court believes that the compulsory heirs were not

pereterited in the will x In this case, the court believes that what is involved is

Segundos last expression to bequeath his estate to all his compulsory heirs, with the exception of Alfredo

x 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 (she was merely designated as a witness to the altercation between Segundo and Alfredo)