Nuguid vs. Nuguid, G.R. No. L-23445, June 23, 1966
Nuguid vs. Nuguid,
G.R. No. L-23445, June 23, 1966
FACTS Rosario Nuguid, a resident of Quezon City, died on December 30, 1962, single, without descendants, legitimate or illegitimate. Surviving her were her legitimate parents, Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid, and six (6) brothers and sisters, namely: Alfredo, Federico, Remedios, Conrado, Lourdes and Alberto, all surnamed Nuguid. On May 18, 1963, petitioner Remedios Nuguid filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal a holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario Nuguid on November 17, 1951, some 11 years before her demise. Petitioner prayed that said will be admitted to probate and that letters of administration with the will annexed be issued to her. On June 25, 1963, Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid, concededly the legitimate father and mother of the deceased Rosario Nuguid, entered their opposition to the probate of her will. Ground therefor, inter alia, is that by the institution of petitioner Remedios Nuguid as universal heir of the deceased, oppositors — who are compulsory heirs of the deceased in the direct ascending line — were illegally preterited and that in consequence the institution is void. Whether the institution of Remedios Nuguid as the sole heir in the will is valid, given that Rosario’s parents were completely omitted
RULING NO. Preterition is the total omission of a compulsory heir from a will. Under Article 854 of the Civil Code, preterition annuls the institution of an heir but allows specific legacies to remain valid, provided they do not impair the legitime.
Here, the Supreme Court ruled that the will was completely void due to preterition under Article 854 of the Civil Code. The omission of compulsory heirs in the direct ascending line (the parents) annulled the institution of heir. Since the will contained no specific legacies or bequests, the entire testamentary disposition was rendered void, resulting in intestate succession.
Whether the probate court, which is generally limited to determining the extrinsic validity of a will, may rule on its intrinsic validity when the defect is clear and unavoidable.
Yes. The Supreme Court held that while the probate court’s jurisdiction is generally limited to determining the extrinsic validity of a will (due execution, authenticity, and testamentary capacity), it may rule on intrinsic validity if the defect is so obvious and undeniable that resolving it early would prevent unnecessary litigation.
Here, the will instituted only one heir while completely omitting the testator’s parents, who were compulsory heirs under the Civil Code. This amounted to preterition, which by law results in the annulment of the institution of heirs and leads to total intestacy. Since the will’s only dispositive provision was clearly void, the probate court was justified in ruling on its intrinsic invalidity to avoid futile proceedings.