CASE TITLE: Dy Yieng Seangio, et al vs. Hon. Amor A. Reyes, et al

CASE #: G.R. Nos. 140371-72

DATE: November 27, 2006

PONENTE: Azcuna, J.

NATURE: Petition for certiorari with application for the issuance of a writ of preliminaryinjunction and/or temporary restraining order seeking the nullification of the orders of the RTC ofManila, dismissing the petitioner for probate on the ground of preterition in consolidated casesentitled, “In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Segundo C. Seangio v. Alfredo D. Seangio, etal.” and “In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Segundo C. Seangio v. Dy Yieng Seangio,Barbara D. Seangio and Virgiia Seangio.” 

DOCTRINE: In Holographic Wills, it is a fundamental principle that the intent or the will of thetestator, expressed in the form and within the limits prescribed by law, must be recognized asthe supreme law in succession. All rules of construction are designed to ascertain and giveeffect to that intention. It is only when the intention of the testator is contrary to law, morals, orpublic policy that it cannot be given effect.

FACTS:

On September 21, 1988, private respondents filed a petition for the settlement of the intestateestate of the late Segundo Seangio, and praying for the appointment of private respondent ElisaD. Seangio-Santos as special administrator and guardian ad litem of petitioner Dy YiengSeangio.

Dy Yieng, Barbara and Virginia Seangio opposed the petition and contented that:

1. Dy Yieng is still very healthy and in full command of her faculties;2. The deceased, Segundo executed a GPA in favor of Virginia giving her the power to

manage, exercise control and supervision over his business in the Philippines;3. Virginia is the most competent and qualified to serve as the administrator of the estate of

Segundo because she is a CPA; and4. Segundo left a holographic will, dated September 20, 1995 disinheriting one of the

private respondents, Alfredo Seangio, for cause.

On April 7, 1999, a petition for the probate of the holographic will of Segundo was filed by thepetitioners before the RTC. They reiterated that probate proceedings should take precedenceover the settlement of intestate estate proceedings because testate proceedings takeprecedence and enjoy priority over intestate proceedings.

Both the settlement of intestate estate proceedings and testate proceedings were consolidatedon May 29, 1999.

By July, private respondents moved the dismissal of the probate proceedings on the ground thatthe document purported to be the holographic will of Segundo does not contain any dispositionof the estate of the deceased. Therefore, it does not meet the definition of a will under Article782 of the Civil Code. The private respondents further argue that the will only shows an allegedact of disinheritance by the decedent of his eldest son, Alfredo, and nothing else; and that allother compulsory heirs were not named nor instituted as heir, devisee or legatee, hence, thereis preterition which results to intestacy.

Petitioners opposed to the motion to dismiss arguing that:

 

1. The authority of the probate court is limited to a determination of the extrinsic validity ofthe will;

2. Private respondents question the intrinsic and not the extrinsic validity of the will;3. Disinheritance constitutes a disposition of the estate of a decedent; and4. 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.

RTC ruled that there is preterition as the only heirs mention in the “will” was Alfredo and Virginia.The other heirs being omitted, Article 854 of the NCC applies. Insofar as Dy Yieng is concerned,the said provision does not apply since she is not a compulsory heir in the direct line. Themotion to suspend proceedings was denied for lack of merit and the testate proceedings wasdismissed without pronouncement as to costs.

ISSUES:

1. WON the document executed by Segundo can be considered as a holographic will. -YES

2. WON there was preterition. - NO

HELD: Yes. A holographic will, as provided under Article 810 of the NCC, must be entirelywritten, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, andmay be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed.

Initially, Segundo’s document may initially come across as a mere disinheritance instrumentconforms to the formalities of a holographic will prescribed by law. An intent to dispose mortiscausa can be clearly deduced from the terms of the instrument, and while it does not make anaffirmative disposition of the latter’s property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless, is anact of disposition in itself. Therefore, the disinheritance results in the disposition of the propertyof the testator Segundo in favor of those who would succeed in the absence of Alfredo.

Moreover, it is a fundamental principle that the intent or the will of the testator, expressed in theform and within the limits prescribed by law, must be recognized as the supreme law insuccession. All rules of construction are designed to ascertain and give effect to that intention. Itis only when the intention of the testator is contrary to law, morals, or public policy that it cannotbe given effect.

There was no preterition because it was Segundo’s last expression to bequeath his estate to allhis compulsory heirs, with the sole exception of Alfredo. Also, Segundo did not institute an heirto the exclusion of his other compulsory heirs. The mere mention of the name of one of thepetitioners, Virginia, in the document did not operate to institute her as an universal heir. Hername was included plainly as a witness to the altercation between Segundo and his son,

 Alfredo.

Because the said document is considered as a holographic will, the law favors testacy overintestacy, the probate of the will cannot be dispensed with. Article 838 of the NCC provides thatno will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordancewith the Rules of Courts. Thus, unless the will is provated, the right of a person to dispose of hisproperty may be rendered nugatory.