REMEDIOS NUGUID, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT VS. FELIX NUGUID AND PAZ SALONGA NUGUID, OPPOSITORS AND APPELLEES.

Remedios Nuguid versus Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid

The Case

This is a petition for the probate of a holographic will, filed by Remedios Nuguid, who was instituted in that will as the sole universal heir of her deceased sister Rosario Nuguid. The parents of the deceased, Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid, opposed probate on the ground that they were preterited, meaning they were completely omitted from the will even though they are compulsory heirs in the direct ascending line. The case matters because it fixes the meaning and the consequences of preterition under the Civil Code: the omission of a compulsory heir in the direct line annuls the institution of heir, and where the will contains nothing but that institution, the entire will is void and intestate succession follows.

Procedural History

Remedios Nuguid filed the petition for probate before the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid entered their opposition, alleging that they were illegally preterited and that the institution of the petitioner as universal heir is void. Before any hearing on the petition and the opposition, the oppositors moved to dismiss on the ground of absolute preterition. The petitioner opposed the motion. The trial court issued an order holding that the will is a complete nullity and would perforce create intestacy of the estate of the deceased, and it dismissed the petition. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, and she came to the Supreme Court on appeal.

Facts

Rosario Nuguid, a resident of Quezon City, died on December 30, 1962. She was single and left no descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. Surviving her were her legitimate parents, Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid, and six brothers and sisters, namely Alfredo, Federico, Remedios, Conrado, Lourdes, and Alberto, all surnamed Nuguid.

On May 18, 1963, Remedios Nuguid filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal for the probate of a holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario Nuguid on November 17, 1951, some eleven years before her death. The petitioner prayed that the will be admitted to probate and that letters of administration with the will annexed be issued to her.

The will is one sentence. It gives, devises, and bequeaths all of the property which the testatrix may have when she dies to her beloved sister Remedios Nuguid. It institutes her as the sole, universal heir and nothing more. No specific legacies or bequests are provided. The will does not name the parents at all. It neither institutes them as heirs nor expressly disinherits them.

Issues

• Whether or not the will should be denied probate because the institution of the petitioner as universal heir is intrinsically void.
• Whether or not the omission of the compulsory heirs in the direct ascending line constitutes preterition under Article 854 of the Civil Code.
• Whether or not the preterition annuls the institution of heir completely, so that the entire will is void and intestate succession ensues.
• Whether or not the case is one of ineffective disinheritance rather than preterition, such that the institution of heir would merely be reduced rather than annulled.

Applicable Provisions

Article 854 of the Civil Code provides:

Article 854. The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious.

This is the provision the Court applies: it makes the omission of a compulsory heir in the direct line annul the institution of heir, while preserving devises and legacies to the extent they are not inofficious.

Article 814 of the Civil Code of Spain of 1889, which Article 854 reproduces, provides:

Article 814. The preterition of one or all of the forced heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall void the institution of heir; but the legacies and betterments shall be valid, in so far as they are not inofficious.

The Court uses the Spanish predecessor to confirm that the annulment of the institution of heir is the fixed effect of preterition, and that only legacies and betterments survive.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the intrinsic validity of the will may be met head-on. Although the court's area of inquiry at the stage of probate is limited to the extrinsic validity of the will, the parties had shunted aside the question of probate and travelled on the issue of law of whether the will is intrinsically a nullity. Remanding the case for probate would gain nothing and would only protract the litigation, with the probability that the same issue would come up again. There being a justiciable controversy crying for solution, the Court resolved the issue of nullity directly.

On the second issue, the Court held that this is a clear case of preterition. The deceased left no descendants, but she left forced heirs in the direct ascending line, her parents. The will completely omits both of them. They received nothing by the testament, they were tacitly deprived of their legitime, and they were not expressly disinherited. The Court defined preterition as consisting in the omission in the testator's will of the forced heirs or anyone of them, either because they are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited.

On the third issue, the Court held that the nullity is complete. The one-sentence will institutes the petitioner as the sole, universal heir and nothing more, and no specific legacies or bequests are provided. The Court reasoned that the word annul means to abrogate, to make void, to reduce to nothing, to nullify. The nullification of the institution of universal heir, without any other testamentary disposition in the will, amounts to a declaration that nothing at all was written. The Court stressed that legacies and devises merit consideration only when they are so expressly given as such in a will, and that nothing in Article 854 suggests that the mere institution of a universal heir in a will void because of preterition would give the heir so instituted a share in the inheritance. As to him, the will is inexistent. Intestate succession ensues.

On the fourth issue, the Court rejected the petitioner's argument that this is a case of ineffective disinheritance rather than preterition. Preterition is the tacit deprivation of the legitime, while disinheritance is a testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory heir of his share in the legitime for a cause authorized by law. Disinheritance is always voluntary and must be express and supported by a legal cause specified in the will itself; preterition is presumed involuntary. The will here does not explicitly disinherit the parents; it simply omits their names altogether. The effects also differ. Under Article 854, preterition annuls the institution of heir in toto, unless there are in addition testamentary dispositions in the form of devises or legacies. Under Article 918, ineffective disinheritance annuls the institution of heirs only insofar as it may prejudice the person disinherited. In disinheritance the nullity is limited to that portion of the estate of which the disinherited heirs have been illegally deprived. The Court quoted the rule that preterited heirs acquire the right to everything, while disinherited heirs are entitled only to a portion.

Doctrine

Preterition is the omission in the testator's will of the forced heirs or anyone of them, either because they are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor are expressly disinherited. It is presumed involuntary, and it requires that the omission refer to a compulsory heir and that the omission be complete, so that the forced heir receives nothing in the testament.

Under Article 854 of the Civil Code, the preterition of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line shall annul the institution of heir. The annulment is complete or total as to the institution of heir. Where the will contains nothing but the institution of a universal heir, with no separate devises or legacies, the nullity of that institution results in the nullity of the entire will, and intestate succession ensues.

Legacies and devises survive only when they are expressly given as such in the will, apart and separate from the nullified institution of heir, and only insofar as they are not inofficious. The mere institution of a universal heir in a will void because of preterition does not give the heir so instituted any share in the inheritance.

Preterition must be distinguished from disinheritance. Disinheritance is express, voluntary, and for a cause authorized by law specified in the will itself. Preterition is tacit and presumed involuntary. Preterition annuls the institution of heir in toto; ineffective disinheritance annuls the institution of heirs only insofar as it may prejudice the person disinherited.

Disposition

The order of the trial court declaring the will a complete nullity and dismissing the petition was affirmed, with no costs allowed. The oppositors, the parents of the deceased, prevailed, and the estate of Rosario Nuguid passes by intestate succession.

Remember This

Memorize the rule that preterition of a compulsory heir in the direct line annuls the institution of heir completely, and where the will contains nothing but that institution, the entire will is void and intestate succession follows. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between preterition and ineffective disinheritance, and to test whether a universal heir instituted in a will void for preterition may still take a share.