Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 72706 October 27, 1987
CONSTANTINO C. ACAIN, petitioner,
vs.
HON. INTERMEDIATE APPEATE COURT !T"#r$ S%ec#&' C&(e( D#)#(#o*+, ,IRGINIA A.
-ERNANDE. &*$ ROSA DIONGSON, respondents.
PARAS, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision / of respondent. Court of Appeals in
AC-.R. !P No. "#$%% pro&ul'ated on Au'ust (", )*+# ,Rollo, p. )"+- orderin' the dis&issal
of the petition in !pecial Proceedin's No, #*) ACEB and its Resolution issued on .ctober /(,
)*+# ,Rollo, p. $/- den0in' respondents1 ,petitioners herein- &otion for reconsideration.
The dispositive portion of the 2uestioned decision reads as follows3
45ERE6.RE, the petition is hereb0 'ranted and respondent Re'ional Trial Court of the
!eventh 7udicial Re'ion, Branch 8999 ,Cebu Cit0-, is hereb0 ordered to dis&iss the petition in
!pecial Proceedin's No. #*) ACEB No special pronounce&ent is &ade as to costs.
The antecedents of the case, based on the su&&ar0 of the 9nter&ediate Appellate Court,
now Court of Appeals, ,Rollo, pp. )"+-)"*- are as follows3
.n Ma0 /*, )*+% petitioner Constantino Acain :led on the Re'ional Trial Court of Cebu Cit0
Branch 8999, a petition for the probate of the will of the late Ne&esio Acain and for the
issuance to the sa&e petitioner of letters testa&entar0, doc;eted as !pecial Proceedin's No.
#*) ACEB ,Rollo, p. /*-, on the pre&ise that Ne&esio Acain died leavin' a will in which
petitioner and his brothers Antonio, 6lores and 7ose and his sisters Anita, Concepcion,
<uirina and =aura were instituted as heirs. The will alle'edl0 e>ecuted b0 Ne&esio Acain on
6ebruar0 )$, )*?" was written in Bisa0a ,Rollo, p. /$- with a translation in En'lish ,Rollo, p.
()- sub&i1tted b0 petitioner without ob@ection raised b0 private respondents. The will
contained provisions on burial rites, pa0&ent of debts, and the appoint&ent of a certain
Att0. 9'nacio . Ailla'onBalo as the e>ecutor of the testa&ent. .n the disposition of the
testator1s propert0, the will provided3
T59RC3 All &0 shares that 9 &a0 receive fro& our properties. house, lands and &one0 which 9
earned @ointl0 with &0 wife Rosa Cion'son shall all be 'iven b0 &e to &0 brother !EDNC.
ACA9N 6ilipino, widower, of le'al a'e and presentl0 residin' at (#$-C !ancian';o !treet,
Cebu Cit0. 9n case &0 brother !e'undo Acain pre-deceased &e, all the &one0 properties,
lands, houses there in Banta0an and here in Cebu Cit0 which constitute &0 share shall be
'iven to &e to his children, na&el03 Anita, Constantino, Concepcion, <uirina, laura, 6lores,
Antonio and 7ose, all surna&ed Acain.
.bviousl0, !e'undo pre-deceased Ne&esio. Thus it is the children of !e'undo who are
clai&in' to be heirs, with Constantino as the petitioner in !pecial Proceedin's No. #*) ACEB
) Acain vs. 9AC
!uccession
After the petition was set for hearin' in the lower court on 7une /#, )*+% the oppositors
,respondents herein Air'inia A. 6ernandeB, a le'all0 adopted dau'hter of tile deceased and
the latter1s widow Rosa Cion'son Ada. de Acain :led a &otion to dis&iss on the followin'
'rounds for the petitioner has no le'al capacit0 to institute these proceedin'sE ,/- he is
&erel0 a universal heir and ,(- the widow and the adopted dau'hter have been pretirited.
,Rollo, p. )#+-. !aid &otion was denied b0 the trial @ud'e.
After the denial of their subse2uent &otion for reconsideration in the lower court,
respondents :led with the !upre&e Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition with
preli&inar0 in@unction which was subse2uentl0 referred to the 9nter&ediate Appellate Court
b0 Resolution of the Court dated March )), )*+# ,Me&orandu& for Petitioner, p. (E Rollo, p.
)#*-.
Respondent 9nter&ediate Appellate Court 'ranted private respondents1 petition and ordered
the trial court to dis&iss the petition for the probate of the will of Ne&esio Acain in !pecial
Proceedin's No. #*) ACEB
5is &otion for reconsideration havin' been denied, petitioner :led this present petition for
the review of respondent Court1s decision on Cece&ber )+, )*+# ,Rollo, p. ?-. Respondents1
Co&&ent was :led on 7une ?, )*+? ,Rollo, p. )%?-.
.n Au'ust )), )*+? the Court resolved to 'ive due course to the petition ,Rollo, p. )#(-.
Respondents1 Me&orandu& was :led on !epte&ber //, )*+? ,Rollo, p. )#$-E the
Me&orandu& for petitioner was :led on !epte&ber /*, )*+? ,Rollo, p. )$$-.
Petitioner raises the followin' issues ,Me&orandu& for petitioner, p. %-3
,A- The petition :led in AC-.R. No. "#$%% for certiorari and prohibition with preli&inar0
in@unction is not the proper re&ed0 under the pre&isesE
,B- The authorit0 of the probate courts is li&ited onl0 to in2uirin' into the e>trinsic validit0 of
the will sou'ht to be probated and it cannot pass upon the intrinsic validit0 thereof before it
is ad&itted to probateE
,C- The will of Ne&esio Acain is valid and &ust therefore, be ad&itted to probate. The
preterition &entioned in Article +#% of the New Civil Code refers to preterition of
Fco&pulsor0 heirs in the direct line,F and does not appl0 to private respondents who are not
co&pulsor0 heirs in the direct lineE their o&ission shall not annul the institution of heirsE
,C- C9CAT TE!TAT.R ET MER9T =E8. 4hat the testator sa0s will be the lawE
,E- There &a0 be nothin' in Article +#% of the New Civil Code, that su''ests that &ere
institution of a universal heir in the will would 'ive the heir so instituted a share in the
inheritance but there is a de:nite distinct intention of the testator in the case at bar,
e>plicitl0 e>pressed in his will. This is what &atters and should be in violable.
,6- As an instituted heir, petitioner has the le'al interest and standin' to :le the petition in
!p. Proc. No. #*) ACEB for probate of the will of Ne&esio Acain and
,- Article +#% of the New Civil Code is a bill of attainder. 9t is therefore unconstitutional and
ineGectual.
/ Acain vs. 9AC
!uccession
The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not private respondents have been pretirited.
Article +#% of the Civil Code provides3
Art. +#%. The preterition or o&ission of one, so&e, or all of the co&pulsor0 heirs in the direct
line, whether livin' at the ti&e of the e>ecution of the will or born after the death of the
testator, shall annul the institution of heirE but the devisees and le'acies shall be valid
insofar as the0 are notE inoHcious.
9f the o&itted co&pulsor0 heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall he
eGectual, without pre@udice to the ri'ht of representation.
Preterition consists in the o&ission in the testator1s will of the forced heirs or an0one of the&
either because the0 are not &entioned therein, or, thou'h &entioned, the0 are neither
instituted as heirs nor are e>pressl0 disinherited ,Nu'uid v. Nu'uid, )$ !CRA %#" I)*??JE
Maninan' v. Court of Appeals, ))% !CRA %$+ I)*+/J-. 9nsofar as the widow is concerned,
Article +#% of the Civil Code &a0 not appl0 as she does not ascend or descend fro& the
testator, althou'h she is a co&pulsor0 heir. !tated otherwise, even if the survivin' spouse is
a co&pulsor0 heir, there is no preterition even if she is o&itted fro& the inheritance, for she
is not in the direct line. ,Art. +#%, Civil code- however, the sa&e thin' cannot be said of the
other respondent Air'inia A. 6ernandeB, whose le'al adoption b0 the testator has not been
2uestioned b0 petitioner ,.Me&orandu& for the Petitioner, pp. +-*-. Dnder Article (* of P.C.
No. ?"(, ;nown as the Child and Kouth 4elfare Code, adoption 'ives to the adopted person
the sa&e ri'hts and duties as if he were a le'iti&ate child of the adopter and &a;es the
adopted person a le'al heir of the adopter. 9t cannot be denied that she has totall0 o&itted
and preterited in the will of the testator and that both adopted child and the widow were
deprived of at least their le'iti&e. Neither can it be denied that the0 were not e>pressl0
disinherited. 5ence, this is a clear case of preterition of the le'all0 adopted child.
Pretention annuls the institution of an heir and annul&ent throws open to intestate
succession the entire inheritance includin' Fla porcion libre (que) no hubiese dispuesto en
virtual de legado mejora o donacionF Maniesa as cited in Nu'uid v. Nu'uid, supraE Maninan'
v. Court of Appeals, ))% !CRA I)*+/J-. The onl0 provisions which do not result in intestac0
are the le'acies and devises &ade in the will for the0 should stand valid and respected,
e>cept insofar as the le'iti&es are concerned.
The universal institution of petitioner to'ether with his brothers and sisters to the entire
inheritance of the testator results in totall0 abro'atin' the will because the nulli:cation of
such institution of universal heirs-without an0 other testa&entar0 disposition in the will-
a&ounts to a declaration that nothin' at all was written. Carefull0 worded and in clear
ter&s, Article +#% of the Civil Code oGers no leewa0 for inferential interpretation ,Nu'uid v.
Nu'uid-, supra. No le'acies nor devises havin' been provided in the will the whole propert0
of the deceased has been left b0 universal title to petitioner and his brothers and sisters.
The eGect of annullin' the F9nstitution of heirs will be, necessaril0, the openin' of a total
intestac0 ,Neri v. A;utin, $% Phil. )+# I)*%(J- e>cept that proper le'acies and devises &ust,
as alread0 stated above, be respected.
4e now deal with another &atter. 9n order that a person &a0 be allowed to intervene in a
probate proceedin' he &ust have an interest iii the estate, or in the will, or in the propert0
to be aGected b0 it either as e>ecutor or as a clai&ant of the estate and an interested part0
is one who would be bene:ted b0 the estate such as an heir or one who has a clai& a'ainst
the estate li;e a creditor ,!u&ilan' v. Ra&a'osa, /) !CRA )(?*L)*?$-. Petitioner is not the
appointed e>ecutor, neither a devisee or a le'atee there bein' no &ention in the
( Acain vs. 9AC
!uccession
testa&entar0 disposition of an0 'ift of an individual ite& of personal or real propert0 he is
called upon to receive ,Article $+/, Civil Code-. At the outset, he appears to have an interest
in the will as an heir, de:ned under Article $+/ of the Civil Code as a person called to the
succession either b0 the provision of a will or b0 operation of law. 5owever, intestac0 havin'
resulted fro& the preterition of respondent adopted child and the universal institution of
heirs, petitioner is in eGect not an heir of the testator. 5e has no le'al standin' to petition
for the probate of the will left b0 the deceased and !pecial Proceedin's No. #*) A-CEB &ust
be dis&issed.
As a 'eneral rule certiorari cannot be a substitute for appeal, e>cept when the 2uestioned
order is an oppressive e>ercise of @ @udicial authorit0 ,People v. Aillanueva, ))" !CRA %?#
I)*+)JE Ada. de Caldito v. !e'undo, ))$ !CRA #$( I)*+/JE Co Chuan !en' v. Court of
Appeals, )/+ !CRA ("+ I)*+%JE and Bautista v. !ar&iento, )(+ !CRA #+$ I)*+#J-. 9t is
a>io&atic that the re&edies of certiorari and prohibition are not available where the
petitioner has the re&ed0 of appeal or so&e other plain, speed0 and ade2uate re&ed0 in
the course of law ,CC Co&endador Construction Corporation v. !a0o ,))+ !CRA #*" I)*+/J-.
The0 are, however, proper re&edies to correct a 'rave abuse of discretion of the trial court
in not dis&issin' a case where the dis&issal is founded on valid 'rounds ,Ada. de Bacan' v.
Court of Appeals, )/# !CRA )($ I)*+(J-.
!pecial Proceedin's No. #*) ACEB is for the probate of a will. As stated b0 respondent Court,
the 'eneral rule is that the probate court1s authorit0 is li&ited onl0 to the e>trinsic validit0 of
the will, the due e>ecution thereof, the testator1s testa&entar0 capacit0 and the co&pliance
with the re2uisites or sole&nities prescribed b0 law. The intrinsic validit0 of the will nor&all0
co&es onl0 after the Court has declared that the will has been dul0 authenticated. !aid
court at this sta'e of the proceedin's is not called upon to rule on the intrinsic validit0 or
eHcac0 of the provisions of the will ,Nu'uid v. Nu'uid, )$ !CRA %%* I)*??JE !u&ilan' v.
Ra&a'osa, supraE Maninan' v. Court of Appeals, ))% !CRA %$+ I)*+/JE Ca0etano v.
=eonides, )/* !CRA #// I)*+%JE and Nepo&uceno v. Court of Appeals, )(* !CRA /"?
I)*+#J-.
The rule, however, is not inMe>ible and absolute. Dnder e>ceptional circu&stances, the
probate court is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass upon
certain provisions of the will ,Nepo&uceno v. Court of Appeals, supra-. 9n Nu'uid v. Nu'uid
the oppositors to the probate &oved to dis&iss on the 'round of absolute preteriton The
probate court actin' on the &otion held that the will in 2uestion was a co&plete nullit0 and
dis&issed the petition without costs. .n appeal the !upre&e Court upheld the decision of
the probate court, induced b0 practical considerations. The Court said3
4e pause to reMect. 9f the case were to be re&anded for probate of the will, nothin' will be
'ained. .n the contrar0, this liti'ation will be protracted. And for au'ht that appears in the
record, in the event of probate or if the court re@ects the will, probabilit0 e>ists that the case
will co&e up once a'ain before us on the sa&e issue of the intrinsic validit0 or nullit0 of the
will. Result3 waste of ti&e, eGort, e>pense, plus added an>iet0. These are the practical
considerations that induce us to a belief that we &i'ht as well &eet head-on the issue of the
validit0 of the provisions of the will in 2uestion. After all there e>ists a @usticiable controvers0
cr0in' for solution.
9n Saguimsim v. Lindayag ,? !CRA +$% I)*?/J- the &otion to dis&iss the petition b0 the
survivin' spouse was 'rounded on petitioner1s lac; of le'al capacit0 to institute the
proceedin's which was full0 substantiated b0 the evidence durin' the hearin' held in
connection with said &otion. The Court upheld the probate court1s order of dis&issal.
% Acain vs. 9AC
!uccession
9n Cayetano v. Leonides, supra one of the issues raised in the &otion to dis&iss the petition
deals with the validit0 of the provisions of the will. Respondent 7ud'e allowed the probate of
the will. The Court held that as on its face the will appeared to have preterited the petitioner
the respondent @ud'e should have denied its probate outri'ht. 4here circu&stances de&and
that intrinsic validit0 of testa&entar0 provisions be passed upon even before the e>trinsic
validit0 of the will is resolved, the probate court should &eet the issue. ,Nepo&uceno v.
Court of Appeals,supraE Nu'uid v. Nu'uid, supra-.
9n the instant case private respondents :led a &otion to dis&iss the petition in !p.
Proceedin's No. #*) ACEB of the Re'ional Trial Court of Cebu on the followin' 'rounds3 ,)-
petitioner has no le'al capacit0 to institute the proceedin'sE ,/- he is &erel0 a universal
heirE and ,(- the widow and the adopted dau'hter have been preterited ,Rollo, p. )#+-. 9t
was denied b0 the trial court in an order dated 7anuar0 /), )*+# for the reason that Fthe
'rounds for the &otion to dis&iss are &atters properl0 to be resolved after a hearin' on the
issues in the course of the trial on the &erits of the case ,Rollo, p. (/-. A subse2uent &otion
for reconsideration was denied b0 the trial court on 6ebruar0 )#, )*+# ,Rollo, p. )"*-.
6or private respondents to have tolerated the probate of the will and allowed the case to
pro'ress when on its face the will appears to be intrinsicall0 void as petitioner and his
brothers and sisters were instituted as universal heirs coupled with the obvious fact that one
of the private respondents had been preterited would have been an e>ercise in futilit0. 9t
would have &eant a waste of ti&e, eGort, e>pense, plus added futilit0. The trial court could
have denied its probate outri'ht or could have passed upon the intrinsic validit0 of the
testa&entar0 provisions before the e>trinsic validit0 of the will was resolved ,Ca0etano v.
=eonides, supraE Nu2uid v. Nu'uid, supra. The re&edies of certiorari and prohibition were
properl0 availed of b0 private respondents.
Thus, this Court ruled that where the 'rounds for dis&issal are indubitable, the defendants
had the ri'ht to resort to the &ore speed0, and ade2uate re&edies of certiorari and
prohibition to correct a 'rave abuse of discretion, a&ountin' to lac; of @urisdiction,
co&&itted b0 the trial court in not dis&issin' the case, ,Ada. de Bacan' v. Court of
Appeals, supra- and even assu&in' the e>istence of the re&ed0 of appeal, the Court
har;ens to the rule that in the broader interests of @ustice, a petition for certiorari &a0 be
entertained, particularl0 where appeal would not aGord speed0 and ade2uate relief.
,Maninan' Court of Appeals, supra-.
PREM9!E! C.N!9CEREC, the petition is hereb0 CEN9EC for lac; of &erit and the 2uestioned
decision of respondent Court of Appeals pro&ul'ated on Au'ust (", )*+# and its Resolution
dated .ctober /(, )*+# are hereb0 A669RMEC.
!. .RCEREC.
Teehankee, C.., !ap, "ernan, #arvasa, $utierre%, r., Cru%, "eliciano, $ancayco, &adilla,
'idin, Sarmiento and Cortes, ., concur.


# Acain vs. 9AC
!uccession