Facts:
This case involves the estate of the late Segundo C. Seangio. On September 21, 1998, private respondents filed a petition for the settlement of Segundo’s intestate estate (SP. Proc. No. 98-90870) and requested the appointment of Elisa D. Seangio-Santos as special administrator and guardian ad litem for Dy Yieng Seangio.
Petitioners Dy Yieng, Barbara, and Virginia opposed, citing Dy Yieng’s good health, Segundo’s power of attorney given to Virginia, Virginia’s qualifications to be the administrator, and a purported holographic will dated September 20, 1995 which disinherited Alfredo Seangio for cause.
On April 7, 1999, petitioners initiated probate proceedings (SP. Proc. No. 99-93396) for Segundo’s holographic will and argued that this should supersede the intestate proceedings due to the existence of a will.
The cases were consolidated on May 29, 1999. Private respondents sought to dismiss the probate proceedings, arguing that the document purporting to be a holographic will had no testamentary disposition, and the absence of named or instituted heirs other than Alfredo resulted in preterition, leading to intestacy.
Petitioners opposed, maintaining that the probate court’s authority is limited to the extrinsic validity of the will, and argued that the RTC failed to follow the proper procedure outlined in the Rules of Court before dismissing the probate petition.
On August 10, 1999, the RTC dismissed the probate petition, citing preterition and applying Acain v. Intermediate Appellate Court. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on October 14, 1999. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Whether the authority of probate courts is limited to the extrinsic validity of the will.
2. Whether Segundo’s document serves as his holographic will and satisfies the formalities prescribed by law.
3. Whether the alleged holographic will’s disinheritance of Alfredo Seangio is indeed testamentary in character.
4. Whether preterition is present in Segundo’s document, warranting the dismissal of the probate proceedings.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding that the document dated, signed, and written by Segundo is considered a holographic will according to Article 810 of the Civil Code.
1. The Court affirmed that, generally, the probate court’s jurisdiction is limited to determining the extrinsic validity of the will. However, it noted that under exceptional circumstances, courts may rule on intrinsic aspects to prevent futility in the probate process.
2. The Court concluded that the document indeed manifested Segundo’s intent to dispose of his property upon his death and thus qualifies as a holographic will that must be subjected to probate proceedings.
3. The Court agreed that disinheritance itself constituted an act of disposition, and Segundo’s document sufficiently expressed a valid cause for disinheritance under Article 919 of the Civil Code, thereby making it testamentary.
4. Finally, the Supreme Court determined there was no preterition, as the document did not institute an heir to exclude others from the succession. Instead, it showed Segundo’s intention to disinherit Alfredo while the rest of the estate would pass to his other compulsory heirs.
The Supreme Court directed the RTC to reinstate and hear the probate proceedings for the holographic will, while the intestate case was suspended until the testate proceedings concluded.
Doctrine:
– A holographic will must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself.
– Testacy is favored over intestacy, and unless a will is probated, the right of a person to dispose of their property will not take effect.
– Preterition involves the complete omission of a compulsory heir in the direct line, which annuls the institution of heirs except for devises and legacies that are not inofficious.
Class Notes:
1. Holographic Will: Must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the testator’s own hand (Article 810 of the Civil Code).
2. Disinheritance: Must be made through a will and must specify the legal cause for disinheritance (Article 916, 919 of the Civil Code).
3. Preterition: The total omission of one or more compulsory heirs in the direct line annuls the institution of heir (Article 854 of the Civil Code).
4. Probate Court Jurisdiction: Generally limited to extrinsic validity, except in exceptional circumstances where intrinsic validity may be addressed to prevent an exercise in futility (Acain v. Intermediate Appellate Court).
Historical Background:
This case reflects the Philippine Supreme Court’s approach to wills and succession, emphasizing the importance of the intent of the testator and the liberal interpretation of holographic wills, especially when drafted without legal expertise. It underscores the Court’s inclination to uphold testamentary disposition over intestacy whenever the law allows.
Leave a Reply