WENCESLA CACHO, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. JOHN G. UDAN AND RUSTICO G. UDAN, OPPOSITORS-APPELLANTS.

Direct appeal, on questions of
law, from an order of the Court of First Instance of Zambales (Hon. Lucas Lacson,
presiding), issued on 20 February 1962, in its Special Proceeding No. 2230,
wherein the court disallowed the opposition of John G. Udan and Rustico G. Udan to the probate of the alleged will of their sister
Silvina Udan.

From the records it can be
gleaned that on 13 December
1959 one
Silvina G. Udan, single, and
a resident of San Marcelino, Zambales, died leaving a purported will naming her son
Francisco G. Udan and one Wencesla Cacho, as her sole heirs,
share and share alike. Wencesla Cacho filed a petition to probate said Will in the Court of
First Instance of Zambales on 14 January 1960 (RA. pp.
1-16) On 15 February 1960 Rustico G. Udan, legitimate brother of the testatrix, filed an
opposition to the probate (RA. pp. 16-18). On 16
February 1960, Atty. Guillermo Pablo, Jr.,
filed his Appearance and Urgent Motion for Postponement for and in behalf of his
client Francisco G. Udan, the apointed heir in the Will (RA. pp. 18-22). On
9 June
1960
Francisco G. Udan, through counsel, filed his
opposition to the probate of this Will (RA. pp. 33-35). On 15 September
1960
oppositor Rustico G. Udan, through counsel, verbally moved to withdraw his
opposition, dated 13 February
1960, due
to the appearance of Francisco G Udan, the named heir
in the Will and said opposition was ordered withdrawn (RA. pp. 55-56). After one
witness the Notary Public who made and notarized the Will had testified in
court, oppositor Francisco G. Udan died on 17 June
1961 in
San Marcelino, Zambales,
Philippines (RA. pp. 63-66).

After the death of Francisco G.
Udan, John G. Udan and Rustico G. Udan, both legitimate
brothers of the testatrix Silvina G. Udan, filed their respective oppositions on the ground that
the will was not attested and executed as required by law; that testatrix was
incapacitated to execute it; and that it was procured by fraud or undue
influence (R.A. pp. 63-66; 67-71). On 20 January 1962 proponent-appellee, through counsel, filed a. Motion to Dismiss
Oppositions filed by the Oppositors (RA. pp. 73-80),
and on 20 February 1962 the Honorable Court of First Instance of Zambales issued an Order disallowing these two oppositions
for lack of interest in the estate and directing the Fiscal to study the
advisability of filing escheat proceedings (RA. pp. 97-99). On 26 and
30 March
1962 both
oppositors filed their Motions for Reconsideration,
through their respective counsels, and these motions were both denied by the
lower court on 25 April
1962 (RA.
pp. 99-122; 131-132). On 7 May 1962 oppositors filed their joint Notice of Appeal (RA. pp.
132-135).

The first issue tendered by
appellants is whether the oppositor brothers, John and
Rustico Udan, may claim to
be heirs intestate of their legitimate sister, the late Silvina Udan. We find that the
court below correctly held that they were not, for at the time of her death
Silvina’s illegitimate son, Francisco Udan, was her heir intestate, to the exclusion of her
brothers. This is clear from Articles 988 and 1003 of the governing Civil Code
of the Philippines, in force at the time of the
death of the testatrix:

“Art. 988 In the absence of
legitimate descendants or ascendants, the illegitimate children shall succeed to
the entire estate of the deceased.”

“Art. 1003. If there are no
descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the
collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased in
accordance with the following articles.”

These legal provisions decree
that collateral relatives of one who died intestate inherit only in the absence
of descendants, ascendants, and illegitimate children. Albeit the brothers and
sisters can concur with the widow or widower under Article 1101, they do not
concur, but are excluded by the surviving children, legitimate or illegitimate
(Art. 1003).

That Francisco Udan was the illegitimate son of the late Silvina is not denied by the oppositors; and he is so acknowledged to be in the
testament, where said Francisco is termed “son” by the testatrix. As the latter
was admittedly single, the son must be necessarily illegitimate (presumptively
natural under Article 277).

The trial court, therefore,
committed no error in holding that John and Rustico
Udan had no standing to oppose the probate of the
will. For if the will is ultimately probated John and Rustico are excluded by its terms from participating in the
estate; and if probate be denied, both oppositors-appellants will be excluded by the illegitimate
son, Francisco Udan, as sole intestate heir, by
operation of law.

The death of Francisco two years
after his mother’s demise does not improve the situation of appellants. The
rights acquired by the former are only transmitted by his death to his own heirs
at law, not to the appellants, who are legitimate brothers of his mother, for
the reason that, as correctly decided by the court below, the legitimate
relatives of the mother can not succeed her illegitimate child. This is clear
from Article 992 of the Civil Code.

“ART. 992. An illegitimate child
has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of
his father of mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same
manner from the illegitimate child.”

For the oppositors-appellants it is argued that while Francisco
Udan did survive his mother, and acquired the rights
to the succession from the moment of her death (Art. 777, Civ. Code), still he did not acquire the inheritance until
he accepted it. This argument fails to take into account that the Code presumes
acceptance of an inheritance if the latter is not repudiated in due time (Civ. Code, Art. 1057, p. 2), and that repudiation, to be
valid must appear in a public or authentic instrument, or petition to the court.
There is no document or pleading in the records showing repudiation of the
inheritance by Francisco Udan. The latter’s own
opposition (RA. p. 61) to the probate of the alleged will is perfectly
compatible with the intention to exclude the proponent Cacho as testamentary co-heir, and to claim the entire
inheritance as heir ab intestato.

Finally, it is urged that ns
probate is only concerned with the due execution of a testament, any ruling on the successional rights of oppositors-appellants is at present premature. Inquiry into
the hereditary rights of the appellants is not premature, if the purpose is to
determine whether their opposition should be excluded in order to simplify and
accelerate the proceedings. If, as already shown, appellants can not gain any
hereditary interest in the estate, whether the will is probated or not, their
intervention would merely result in unnecessary complication.

It may not be amiss to note,
however, that the hearing on the probate must still proceed to ascertain the
rights of the proponent Cacho as testamentary heir.

WHEREFORE, the order under appeal is
affirmed, without prejudice to further proceedings in the case, conformably to
this opinion. Costs against appellants John G. Udan and Rustico G. Udan.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon,
J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ.,concur.