Wencesla Cacho v. John G. Udan and Rustico G. Udan
### Facts:
Silvina G. Udan passed away on December 13, 1959, in San Marcelino, Zambales, leaving behind a will naming her son, Francisco G. Udan, and Wencesla Cacho as sole heirs. Cacho filed for the probate of the will on January 14, 1960. Oppositions to the probate were filed by Rustico G. Udan (Silvina’s legitimate brother) on February 15, 1960, and subsequently by her son Francisco G. Udan on June 9, 1960. Rustico withdrew his opposition on September 15, 1960, following Francisco’s participation. Francisco Udan passed away on June 17, 1961. Thereafter, John G. Udan (another of Silvina’s legitimate brothers) and Rustico filed oppositions claiming the will was improperly executed, Silvina was incapacitated, and it was procured by fraud or undue influence.
After motions and counter-motions between the parties, the Court of First Instance of Zambales disallowed the oppositions on February 20, 1962, and ordered a study into the advisability of filing escheat proceedings. The oppositors’ motions for reconsideration were denied on April 25, 1962. John and Rustico Udan then filed a joint Notice of Appeal on May 7, 1962, challenging the decision.
### Issues:
1. Whether John and Rustico Udan, as the legitimate brothers of Silvina Udan, have the right to inherit from her estate in the presence of an illegitimate son, Francisco Udan.
2. Whether the opposition to the will’s probate by the legitimate brothers was properly disallowed for lack of interest.
3. The procedural implications of probate proceedings on the hereditary rights of the oppositors-appellants.
### Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the legitimate brothers, John and Rustico Udan, did not have a right to inherit from Silvina Udan’s estate due to the presence of an illegitimate son, Francisco Udan, who is accorded inheritance priority under Articles 988 and 1003 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The Court reasoned that Francisco’s rights to Silvina’s estate were fixed upon her death and that his subsequent death transferred those rights to his own legal heirs, not to Silvina’s legitimate brothers.
### Doctrine:
– Illegitimate children inherit the entire estate in the absence of legitimate descendants or ascendants, excluding collateral relatives like legitimate siblings (Articles 988 and 1003, Civil Code).
– Legitimate relatives cannot succeed from an illegitimate child as clarified in Article 992 of the Civil Code.
– A presumption of acceptance exists for inheritance if not repudiated in due time, based on Article 1057 of the Civil Code.
### Class Notes:
– **Legitimate vs. Illegitimate Heirs:** Legitimate siblings do not inherit in the presence of an illegitimate child.
– **Inheritance Acceptance:** Acceptance of an inheritance is presumed if not formally repudiated.
– **Probate Proceedings:** Focus on the execution of the will, but determining interest of parties can simplify proceedings.
### Historical Background:
This case highlights the legal nuances between legitimate and illegitimate heirs within Philippine inheritance law. It underscores the Civil Code’s provisions in distinguishing rights based on legitimacy, illustrating how such laws were interpreted and applied in a specific inheritance dispute involving probate proceedings.
Leave a Reply