Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Neri V Akutin

    Uploaded by

    Karla Bee
    24 views27 pages
    This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines case regarding the estate of Agripino Neri y Chavez. Neri left all his property by universal title to the children of his second marriage, preteriting the children of his first marriage. The trial court and Court of Appeals found that the children of the first marriage did not receive any property from Neri's estate. As such, this was a case of preterition governed by Article 814 of the Civil Code, which annuls the institution of heirs and declares total intestacy when a forced heir is preterited. The Supreme Court upheld this finding and rejected the argument that Article 817 or 851 should apply instead of Article 814.

    Original Description:

    Neri v. Akutin

    Original Title

    001. Neri v Akutin

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines case regarding the estate of Agripino Neri y Chavez. Neri left all his property by universal title to the children of his second marriage, preteriting the children of his first marriage. The trial court and Court of Appeals found that the children of the first marriage did not receive any property from Neri's estate. As such, this was a case of preterition governed by Article 814 of the Civil Code, which annuls the institution of heirs and declares total intestacy when a forced heir is preterited. The Supreme Court upheld this finding and rejected the argument that Article 817 or 851 should apply instead of Article 814.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    24 views27 pages

    Neri V Akutin

    Uploaded by

    Karla Bee
    This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines case regarding the estate of Agripino Neri y Chavez. Neri left all his property by universal title to the children of his second marriage, preteriting the children of his first marriage. The trial court and Court of Appeals found that the children of the first marriage did not receive any property from Neri's estate. As such, this was a case of preterition governed by Article 814 of the Civil Code, which annuls the institution of heirs and declares total intestacy when a forced heir is preterited. The Supreme Court upheld this finding and rejected the argument that Article 817 or 851 should apply instead of Article 814.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 27

    RepublicofthePhilippines

    SUPREMECOURT
    Manila
    ENBANC
    G.R.No.L47799May21,1943
    AdministrationoftheestateofAgripinoNeriyChavez.ELEUTERIONERI,ETAL.,
    petitioners,
    vs.
    IGNACIAAKUTINANDHERCHILDREN,respondents.
    OzamisandCapistranoforpetitioners.
    Gullas,Leuterio,TannerandLaputforrespondents.
    MORAN,J.:
    Thisisacasewherethetestatorinhiswillleftallhispropertybyuniversaltitletothe
    childrenbyhissecondmarriage,thehereinrespondents,withpreteritionofthechildrenbyhis
    firstmarriage,thehereinpetitioner.ThisCourtannulledtheinstitutionofheirsanddeclareda
    totalintestacy.
    Amotionforreconsiderationhasbeenfiledbytherespondentsontheground(1)thatthereis
    nopreteritionastothechildrenofthefirstmarriagewhohavereceivedtheirsharesinthe
    propertyleftbythetestator,and(2)that,evenassumingthattherehasbeenapreterition,the
    effectwouldnotbetheannulmentoftheinstitutionofheirsbutsimplythereductionofthe
    bequestmadetothem.
    1.ThefindingsofthetrialcourtandthoseoftheCourtofAppealsarecontraryto
    respondents'firstcontention.ThechildrenofthefirstmarriageareEleuterio,Agripino,
    Agapita,Getulia(whodiedalittlelessthaneightyearsbeforethedeathofherfatherAgripino
    Neri,leavingsevenchildren),RosarioandCelerina.
    AstoEleuterio,thetrialcourtsaidthat"itisnot,therefore,clearthatEleuteriohasreceived
    hisshareoutofthepropertiesleftbyhisfather."ItistruethatEleuterioappearstohave
    received,asadonationfromhisfather,parceloflandNo.4,butthequestionofwhetherthere
    hasbeenadonationornotisapparentlyleftfordecisioninanindependentaction,andtothat
    effectIgnaciaAkutinhasbeenappointedspecialadministratrixforthepurposeofinstituting
    suchaction.
    WithrespecttoAgripinoandAgapita,theparcelsoflandwhichtheyhaveoccupied,
    accordingtothetrialCourt,"areapartofpubliclandwhichhadbeenoccupiedbyAgripino
    NeriChaves,and,therefore,werenotapartoftheestateofthelatter."
    ConcerningGetuliawhodiedabouteightyearsbeforethedeathofherfatherAgripinoNeri,
    thetrialCourtfoundthat"neitherGetulianorherheirsreceivedanyshareoftheproperties."

    AndwithrespecttoRosarioandCelerina,thetrialCourtsaidthat"itdoesnotappearclear,
    therefore,thatCelerinaandRosarioreceivedtheirsharesintheestateleftbytheirfather
    AgripinoNeriChaves."
    Thisisinconnectionwiththeproperty,realorpersonal,leftbythedeceased.Astomoney
    advances,thetrialCourtfound:
    Itiscontented,furthermore,thatthechildrenofAgripinoNeriChavesinhisfirst
    marriagereceivedmoneyfromtheirfather.ItappearsthatNemesioChavesis
    indebtedintheamountofP1,000;Agripino,intheamountofP500asappearsin
    Exhibits14and15;Getulia,intheamountofP155asappearsinExhibit16,17,and
    18;CelerinaintheamountofP120asappearsinExhibit19,19Aand19B.
    FromthesefindingsofthetrialCourtitisclearthatAgapita,Rosarioandthechildrenof
    Getuliahadreceivedfromthetestatornopropertywhatsoever,personal,realorincash.
    Butclause8ofthewillisinvokedwhereinthetestatormadethestatementthatthechildren
    byhisfirstmarriagehadalreadyreceivedtheirsharesinhispropertyexcludingwhathehad
    giventhemasaidduringtheirfinancialtroublesandthemoneytheyhadborrowedfromhim
    whichhecondonedinthewill.Since,however,thisisanissueoffacttriedbytheCourtof
    FirstInstance,andwearereviewingthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsuponaquestionof
    lawregardingthatissue,wecanrelyonlyuponthefindingsoffactmadebythelatterCourt,
    whichareasfollows:
    SincealltheparcelsthatcorrespondedtoAgripinoNeriyChavesarenowinthe
    administrator'spossession,asappearsintheinventoryfiledincourt,itisclearthatthe
    propertyofthedeceasedhasremainedintactandthatnoportionthereofhasbeen
    giventothechildrenofthefirstmarriage.
    xxxxxxxxx
    Itisstatedbythecourtandpracticallyadmittedbytheappellantsthatachildofthe
    firstmarriagenamedGetulia,orherheirsafterherdeath,didnotreceiveanyshareof
    thepropertyofherfather.
    ItistruethatinthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsthereisalsothefollowingparagraphs:
    AsregardsthatlargeparceloflandadjoiningparcelNo.1,itiscontendedthatafter
    thecourthaddeniedtheregistrationthereof.AgripinoNeriyChavesabandonedthe
    saidlandandthatlateronsomeofthechildrenofthefirstmarriagepossessedit,
    therebyacquiringtitleandinterestthereinbyvirtueofoccupationandnotthrough
    inheritance.Itisnottruethatthisparcelcontaining182.6373hectaresisnowassessed
    inthenamesofsomeofthechildrenofthefirstmarriage,forasshownonTax
    DeclarationNo.9395,Exhibit11g,theownersofthepropertyareAgapitaNeride
    ChavesyHermanos.Apparently,thesaidlandisstillclaimedtobethepropertynot
    onlyofthechildrenofthefirstmarriagebutalsoofthoseofthesecondmarriage.
    ThisparagraphisbutacorroborationofthefindingmadebytheCourtofAppealsthatno
    propertyhaseverbeenadvancedbythetestatortothechildrenbyhisfirstmarriage.Thelarge
    parceloflandadjoiningparcelNo.1wasallegedbythechildrenofthesecondmarriageto
    havebeenadvancedbythetestatortothechildrenbyhisfirstmarriage;buttheCourtof
    Appealsbeliedthisclaim."Itisnottrue,"saysthatCourt,"thatthisparcelcontaining

    182.6373hectaresisnowassessedinthenamesofsomeofthechildrenofthefirstmarriage,
    forasshownonTaxDeclarationNo.9395,Exhibit11g,theownersofthepropertyare
    AgapitaNerideChavesyHermanos,"thatis,thechildrenofbothmarriages.AndtheCourt
    ofAppealsaddedthat"apparently,thesaidlandisstillclaimedtobethepropertynotonlyof
    thechildrenofthefirstmarriagebutalsoofthoseofthesecondmarriage,"whichisanother
    wayofstatingthatthepropertycouldnothavebeenadvancedbythetestatortothechildren
    bythefirstmarriagewouldnotlayaclaimonit.
    Weconclude,therefore,thataccordingtothefindingsoffactmadebytheCourtofAppeals,
    thetestatorleftallhispropertybyuniversaltitletothechildrenbyhissecondmarriage,and
    thatwithoutexpresslydisinheritingthechildrenbyhisfirstmarriage,heleftallhisproperty
    byuniversaltitletothechildrenbyhissecondmarriage,heleftnothingtothemor,atleast,
    someofthem.Thisis,accordingly,acaseofpreteritiongovernedbyarticle814oftheCivil
    Code,whichprovidesthattheinstitutionofheirsshallbeannulledandintestatesuccession
    shouldbedeclaredopen.
    2.Uponthesecondquestionpropoundedinthemotionforreconsideration,respondentsseem
    toagreethatarticle814oftheCivilCodeisthelawapplicablebut,intheirdiscussionasto
    theeffectofpreterition,theyconfusearticle814witharticles817and851andotherarticles
    oftheCivilCode.Thesethreearticlesread:
    ART.814.Thepreteritionofoneorofalloftheforcedheirsinthedirectline,
    whetherlivingattheexecutionofthewillorbornafterthedeathofthetestator,shall
    annultheinstitutionofheirs;butthelegaciesandbettermentsshallbevalidinsofar
    astheyarenotinofficious.
    Thepreteritionofthewidowerorwidowdoesnotannultheinstitution;buttheperson
    omittedshallretainalltherightsgrantedtohimbyarticles834,835,836,and837of
    thisCode.
    ART.817.Testamentarydispositionswhichdiminishthelegitimateoftheforced
    heirsshallbereducedonpetitionofthesameinsofarastheyareinofficiousor
    excessive.
    ART.851.Disinheritancemadewithoutastatementofthecause,orforacausethe
    truthofwhich,ifcontested,isnotshown,orwhichisnotoneofthosestatedinthe
    fourfollowingarticles,shallannultheinstitutionofheirsinsofarasitisprejudicial
    tothedisinheritedperson;butthelegacies,betterments,andothertestamentary
    dispositionsshallbevalidinsofarastheyarenotprejudicialtosaidlegitime.
    Thefollowingexamplewillmakethequestionclearer:Thetestatorhastwolegitimatesons,A
    andB,andinhiswillheleavesallhispropertytoA,withtotalpreteritionofB.Uponthese
    facts,shallweannulentirelytheinstitutionofheirinfavorofAanddeclareatotalintestacy,
    orshallwemerelyrefusethebequestleftA,givinghimtwothirds,thatisonethirdoffree
    disposalandonethirdofbetterments,plusonehalfoftheotherthirdasstrictlegitime,and
    awardingBonlytheremainingonehalfofthestrictlegitime?Ifwedothefirst,weapply
    article814;ifthesecond,weapplyarticles851or817.Butarticle851appliesonlyincases
    ofunfoundeddisinheritance,andallareagreedthatthepresentcaseisnotoneof
    disinheritancebutofpreterition.Article817ismerelyageneralruleinapplicabletospecific
    casesprovidedbylaw,suchasthatofpreteritionordisinheritance.Themeaningofarticles
    814and851,theirdifferenceandphilosophy,andtheirrelationtoarticle817,arelucidly
    explainedbyManresainthefollowingmanner:

    Cuandolalegitimanoesusufructuria,comoocurreenlosdemascasos,lapretericion
    nopuedemenosdealteraresencialmentelainstituciondeheredero.Estahade
    anularse,peroentodooenparte,estoes,soloencuantoperjudiqueelderechodel
    legitimariopreterido?Elarticulo814optaporlaprimersolucion,yaquehemosde
    atenermosestrictmentealtestodelaley;mientrasqueelarticulo851,encasos
    anlogos,optaporlasegunda.
    Enefecto;ladesheredacionsinjustacausanoproduceelefectodedesheredar.El
    herederoconservaderechoasulegitima,peronadamasqueasulegitima.Los
    legados,lasmerjoras,silashay,yaunlainstituciondeheredero,sonvalidasen
    cuantonoperjudiquenalherederoforzoso.
    Ladiferenciasenotaraperfectamenteconunejemplo.Unsolteron,sindecendientes
    niascendienteslegitimos,hacetestamentoinstituyendoporherederoaunpariente
    lejano.Despuesreconoceunhijonatural,osecasaytienedescendencia,ymueresin
    modificarsudisposiciontestamentaria.Asumuerte,elhijonatural,oloslegitimos,
    fundadoseenlanulidadtotaldelainstitucion,conarregloalarticulo814,pidentoda
    laherencia.Enelcasodelarticulo851solopodrianpodrianpedirsulegitima.
    Preterdos,adquierenderechoatodo;desheredados,sololescorrespondeuntercioo
    dostercios,segunelcaso.
    Enelfondolacuestionesindentica.Eltestadorpuedesiempredisponerasuarbitrio
    delapartelibre.Ellegitimario,contralavoluntadexpresadeltestdor,solotiene
    derechoasulegitima.Preteridoodesheredadosinjustacausalalegitima.Preteridoo
    desheredadosinjustacausalalegitmaessuya.Desheredadoopreterido,laporcion
    librenolecorresponde,cuandoeltestadorlaasignaaotro.Logicamentenocabeque
    ellegitmario,encasodepretericion,recibatodoslosbienescuandoeltestadorhaya
    dispuestodeellosatitulodeherencia,ynocuandohayadispuestodelterciolebrea
    titulodelegado.
    Cualeslarazondeestadifferencia?Enlageneralidaddeloscasospuedefundarseel
    preceptoenlapresuntavoluntaddeltestador.Este,aldesheredar,revelaqueexiste
    algunarazonamotivoqueleimpulsaaobrarasi;podranoserbastanteparaprivaral
    herederodesulegitima,perosiemprehadeestimarsesufficienteparaprivarledel
    restodelaherencia,puessobreestanopuedepretenderningunderechoel
    desheredad.Elherederopreteridonohasidoprivadoexpresamentedenada;el
    testador,enloscasosnormales,obrasipordescuidooporerror.Hemosvistoun
    testamentoenelquenoseinstitulaherederaaunahijamonja,porcreerlatestadora
    quenopodiaheredar.Enotroscaosseignoralaexistenciadeundescendienteodeun
    ascendiente.Cuandoelpreteridoesunapersonaquehanacidodespuesdemuertoel
    testadorodespuesdehechoeltestamento,larazonesaunmasclara;laomisionhade
    presumirseinvoluntaria;eltestadordebesuponersequehubierainstituidoherederoa
    esapersonasihubieraexistidoalotorgarseeltestamento,ynosoloencuantoala
    legitima,sinoentodalaherencia,casodenohaberotrosherederosforzosos,yen
    igualesterminosquelosdemasherederosnomejoradosdeunmodeexpreso.
    Laopinioncontrariapuedetambiendefederse,suponiendoquelaleyanulaeltitulo
    deheredero,masnoenabsolutolaparticipacionenelcaudal;queasicomoal
    exceptuarlamejoraserefiereatodoelterciooalapartedeelquehayadistribuidoel
    causante,alexceptuarloslegadosserefiersealapartelibredequehayadispuestoel
    mismotestador,considerandocomounsimplelegatariodeesaporcionalapersonaa
    quieneltestadordesignocomoheredero.Abonariaestasolucionelarticulo817,al

    declararquelasdisposicionestestamentariaquemenguanlalegitimadelosherederos
    forzososhandereducirseencuantofuereninoficiosas,puesamparadoeneste
    articuloelherederovoluntario,puedepretenderqueladisposicionasufavorsea
    respetadaencuatonoperjudiquealaslegitimas.
    Lajurisprudencianoharesueltodefrenteestacuestion,porquenoselehapresentado
    enlosterminospropuestos;perohademonstradosucriterio.
    HemoscitadolasResolucionesdelaDireccionde30deoctubrede1896yde20de
    mayode1893.Enlaprimerasedecideconvalentia,conarregloaltextoexpresodel
    articulo814;lainstituciondeherederoseanulaenabsoluto,yseabreparatodala
    herencialasuccesionintestada.Enlasegundaserehuyelacuestion,fundandoseen
    circunstanciassecundarias.Enelarticulosiguienteexaminaremoslasentenciade16
    deenerode1895.
    Lainterpretacionquerectamentesedeprendedelart814,esladequesolovalen,y
    esoencuantonoseaninoficiosas,lasdisposicioneshechasatitulodelegadoa
    mejora.Encuantoalainstituciondeheredero,seanula.Loqueseanuladejade
    existir,entodo,oenparte?Noseaadelimitacionalguna,comoenelarticulo851,
    enelqueseexpresaqueseanularaainstituciondeherederoencuantoperjudiqueala
    legitimadeldesheredado.Debe,pues,entendersequelaanulacionescompletao
    total,yqueestearticulo,comoespecialenelcasoquelemotiva,rigecon
    preferenciaal817.(6Manresa,3.aed.,pags.351353.)(Emphasissupplied).
    ThefollowingopinionofSanchezRomanistothesameeffectanddispelsallpossibledoubt
    onthematter:
    Laconsecuenciadelaanulaciononulidaddelainstituciondeherederopor
    pretericiondeuno,variosotodoslosforzososenlinearecta,eslaaperturadela
    sucesionentestada,totaloparcial.Seratotal,cuandoeltestadorquecometela
    pretericion,hubieredispuestodetodoslosbienesportitulouniversaldeherenciaen
    favordeloshrederosinstituidos,cuyainstitucionseanula,porqueasiloexigela
    generalidaddelpreceptolegaldelarticulo814,aldeterminar,comoefectodela
    pretericion,eldeque"anularialainstituciondeheredero".Ciertoesquelapreericion
    estaintorducida,comoremediojuridico,porsusefectos,ennombreyparagarantia
    delaintergridaddelalegitimadelosherederosforzososycomoconsecuenciadel
    preceptodel813,deque"eltestadornopodraprivaralosherederosdesulegitima,
    sinoenloscasosexpresamentedeterminadosporlaley",quesonlosde
    desheredacionconjustacausa.
    Ciertoes,tambien,queenladesheredacionesmuyotroelcriteriodelCodigoyque
    suformulalegal,encuantoasusefectos,esdealcancemaslimitado,puestoque,
    conformealarticulo851,ladesheredacionhechasincondicionesdevalidez,"anulara
    lainstituciondeheredero",lomismoquelapretericion,perosolo"encuanto
    perjudiqueladesheredadodemodoilegaleineficaz;salvedadolimitaciondelos
    efectosdenulidaddelainstituciondelosefectosdenulidaddelainstitucionhechaen
    eltestmento,quenoexiste,segunsehavistoenel814,porelquesedeclara,en
    formageneraleindistinta,queanularalainstituciondeherederosinninguna
    atencuacionrespectodequeperjudiqueono,totaloparcialmente,lacuantiadela
    legitimadelherederoforzosoenlinearecta,preterido.

    Elresultadodeamboscriteriosyformulaslegales,manifestamentedistintas,tiene
    quesermuydiverso.Enelcasodelapretericion,propiamentetalototalpuessi
    fueraparcialyseladejaraalgoalherederoforzosoporcualquiertitulo,aunquesee
    algonofueresuficientealpagodesusderechosdelegitima,noseriacasode
    pretericion,reguladoporelarticulo814,sinodecomplemento,regidoporel815yla
    institucionnoseanulariasinoquesemodificariaodisminuiriaenlonecesariopara
    dichocomplenteodeinstituciondeherederoentodalaherencia,alanularsela
    institucion,porefectodelapreteridoopreteridos,respectodetodalaherencia,
    tambien;mientrasqeuenelcasodedesheredacionydeinstitucionenlatotalidadde
    laherencia,tambien;mientrasqueenelcasodedesheredacionydeinstitucionenla
    totalidaddelaherenciaafavordeotrapersona,soloseanularaenparteprecisaprano
    perjudicarlalegitimadeldeshersado,queaunsiendoenestecasolalata,sinohubo
    mejoras,porquenoseestablecieronoporquelosintituidoseranherederos
    voluntarios,dejariasubsistentelainstitucionenlapoartecorrespoondientealtercio
    delibredisposicion.Asiesquelospreteridos,enelsupuestoindicado,suceden
    abintestatoentodo,enconcurrenciaconlosdemasherederosforzososollamadospro
    laleyalabintestato;losdesheredados,unicamenteendosterciosoenunooenuno
    tansolo,enlahipotesisdehaberseordernadomejoras.
    Encambio,niporladesheredacionniporlapretericionpierdesufuerzael
    testamento,encuantoadichoterciolibre,issetratadedescendientes;olamitad,sise
    tratadeascendientes,yadesheredados,yapreteridos,proque,niporelunoniporel
    otromedio,seanulamasquelainstituciondeheredero,engeneral,ytotalmentepor
    lapretericion,ysoloencuantoperjudiquealalegitimadeldesheredadoporla
    desheredacion;perosubsistiendo,enamboscasos,todasacquellasotrasdisposiciones
    quenoserefeirenalainstituciondeherederoysehallendentrodellimite
    cuantitativodeltercioomitaddelibredisposicion,segunquesetratede
    descendientesoascendientes,preteridosodesheredados.
    Lainvocaciondelarticulo817paramodificarestosefectosdelapretericion,
    procurandolimitarlaanulaciondelainstituciondeherederossoloencuanto
    perjudiquealalegitima,fundadoseenquedichoarticuloestableceque"las
    disposicionestestamentariasquemenguanlalegitmadelosherederosforzososse
    reduciran,apeticiondeestos,enloquefuereninoficiosasoexcesivas,"noes
    aceptablenipuedevariaracquellosresultados,porqueesunpreceptodecaracter
    generalentodaotraclasededsiposicionestestamentariasqueproduzcanelefectode
    menguarlalegitima,quenopuedeanteponerse,ensuaplicacion,alasdeindole
    especialparasealarlosefectosdelapretericionodeladesheredacion,regulados
    privativayrespectivamenteporlosarticulos814y851.
    Noobstantelapretericion,"valdranlasmandasylegadosencuantonosean
    inoficiosas."Eltextoesterminanteynonecesitamayorexplicacion,despuesdelo
    dicho,quesupropialetra,anoserparaobservarqueconstituyeunaconfimacion
    indudabledelosefectosdelapretericion,encuantoalcanzansolo,perototalmente,a
    laanulaciondelainstituciondeheredero,peronoaladelasmandasymejorasen
    cuantonoseanpreteridos;calficativodetales,comosinonimolegaldeexcessivas,
    queenotrosarticulos,comoel817,establecelaley.(6SanchezRoman,Volumen2.o
    pags.11401141.)
    Thesecommentsshouldbereadwithcareifwearetoavoidmisunderstanding.Manresa,for
    instance,startsexpoundingthemeaningofthelawwithanillustration.Hesaysthatincaseof
    preterition(article814).thenullityoftheinstitutionofheirsistotal,whereasincaseof

    disinheritance(article851),thenullityispartial,thatis,insofarastheinstitutionaffectsthe
    legitimeofthedisinheritedheirs."Preteridos,adquierenderechoatodo;desheredados,solo
    lescorrespondeuntercioodostercios,segunelcaso."Hethenproceedstocommentuponthe
    wisdomofthedistinctionmadebylaw,givingtwoviewsthereon.Hefirstlaystheview
    contrarytothedistinctionmadebylaw,thentheargumentsinsupportofthedistinction,and
    lastlyapossibledefenseagainstsaidarguments.AndafterstatingthattheSpanish
    jurisprudencehasnotasyetdecidedsquarelythequestion,withanallusion]totwo
    resolutionsoftheSpanishAdministrativeDirection,oneinfavorofarticle814andanother
    evasive,heconcludesthattheconstructionwhichmayrightlybegiventoarticle814isthatin
    caseofpreterition,theinstitutionofheirsisnullintotowhereasincaseofdisinheritancethe
    nullityislimitedtothatportionofthelegitimeofwhichthedisinheritedheirshavebeen
    illegallydeprived.Hefurthermakesitclearthatincasesofpreterition,theproperty
    bequeathedbyuniversaltitledtotheinstitutedheirsshouldnotbemerelyreducedaccording
    toarticle817,butinstead,intestatesuccessionshouldbeopenedinconnectiontherewith
    underarticle814,thereasonbeingthatarticle814,"comoespecialenelcasoquelemotiva,
    rigeconpreferenciaal817."SanchezRomanisofthesameopinionwhenhesaid:"La
    invocaciondelarticulo817paramodificarestosefectosdelapretecion,procurandolimitarla
    anulaciondelainstituciondeherederosoloencuantoperjudquealalegitima,fundandoseen
    quedichoarticuloestableceque"lasdisposicionestestmentariasquemenguanlalegitimade
    losherederosforzosossefuereninoficisosasoexcesivas,"noesaceptablenipuedevariar
    aquellosresultados,porqueesunpreceptodecaractergeneralentodaotraclasede
    disposicionestestmentariasqueproduzcanelefectodemenguarlalegitima,quenopuede
    anteponerse,ensuaplicacion,alasdeindoleespecialparasealarlosefectosdelapretericon
    odeladesheredacion,reguladosprivativayrespectivamenteporlosarticulos814y851.
    Ofcourse,theannulmentoftheinstitutionofheirsincasesofpreteritiondoesnotalways
    carrywithittheineffectivenessofthewholewill.NeitherManresanorSanchezRomannor
    thisCourthaseversaidso.If,asidefromtheinstitutionofheirs,thereareinthewill
    provisionsleavingtotheheirssoinstitutedortootherpersonssomespecificpropertiesinthe
    formoflegaciesormejoras,suchtestamentaryprovisionsshallbeeffectiveandthelegacies
    andmejorasshallberespectedinsofarastheyarenotinofficiousorexcessive,accordingto
    article814.Intheinstantcase,however,nolegaciesormejorasareprovidedinthewill,the
    wholepropertyofthedeceasedhavingbeenleftbyuniversaltitletothechildrenofthe
    secondmarriage.Theeffect,therefore,ofannullingtheinstitutionofheirswillbenecessarily
    theopeningofatotalintestacy.
    Butthetheoryisadvancedthatthebequestmadebyuniversaltitledinfavorofthechildren
    bythesecondmarriageshouldbetreatedaslegadoandmejoraand,accordingly,itmustnot
    beentirelyannulledbutmerelyreduced.Thistheory,ifadopted,willresultinacomplete
    abrogationofarticles814and851oftheCivilCode.Ifeverycaseofinstitutionofheirsmay
    bemadetofallintotheconceptoflegaciesandbettermentsreducingthebequestaccordingly,
    thentheprovisionsofarticles814and851regardingtotalorpartialnullityoftheinstitution,
    wouldbeabsolutelymeaninglessandwillneverhaveanyapplicationatall.Andthe
    remainingprovisionscontainedinsaidarticleconcerningthereductionofinofficiouslegacies
    orbettermentswouldbeasurplusagebecausetheywouldbeabsorbedbyarticle817.Thus,
    insteadofconstruing,wewouldbedestroyingintegralprovisionsoftheCivilCode.
    Thedestructiveeffectofthetheorythusadvancedisduemainlytoafailuretodistinguish
    institutionofheirsfromlegaciesandbetterments,andageneralfromaspecialprovision.
    Withreferencetoarticle814,whichistheonlyprovisionmaterialtothedispositionofthis
    case,itmustbeobservedthattheinstitutionofheirsisthereindealtwithasathingofseparate
    anddistinctfromlegaciesorbetterment.Andtheyareseparateanddistinctnotonlybecause

    theyaredistinctlyandseparatelytreatedinsaidarticlebutbecausetheyareinthemselves
    different.Institutionofheirsisabequestbyuniversaltitleofpropertythatisundetermined.
    Legacyreferstospecificpropertybequeathedbyaparticularorspecialtitle.Thefirstisalso
    differentfromabettermentwhichshouldbemadeexpresslyassuch(article828).Theonly
    instanceofimpliedbettermentrecognizedbylawiswherelegaciesaremadewhichcannotbe
    includedinthefreeportion(article828).Butagainaninstitutionofheirscannotbetakenasa
    legacy.
    Itisclear,therefore,thatarticle814referstotwodifferentthingswhicharethetwodifferent
    objectsofitstwodifferentprovisions.Oneoftheseobjectscannotbemadetomergeinthe
    otherwithoutmutilatingthewholearticlewithallitsmultifariousconnectionswithagreat
    numberofprovisionsspreadthroughouttheCivilCodeonthematterofsuccession.Itshould
    beborneinmind,further,thatalthougharticle814containswhodifferentprovisions,its
    specialpurposeistoestablishaspecificruleconcerningaspecifictestamentaryprovision,
    namely,theinstitutionofheirsinacaseofpreterition.Itsotherprovisionregardingthe
    validityoflegaciesandbettermentsifnotinofficiousisamerereiterationofthegeneralrule
    containedinotherprovisions(articles815and817)andsignifiesmerelythatitalsoappliesin
    casesofpreterition.Asregardstestamentarydispositionsingeneral,thegeneralruleisthatall
    "testamentarydispositionwhichdiminishthelegitimeoftheforcedheirsshallbereducedon
    petitionofthesameinsofarastheyareinofficousorexcessive"(article817).Butthis
    generalruledoesnotapplytothespecificinstanceofatestamentarydispositioncontainingan
    institutionofheirsinacaseofpreterition,whichismadethemainandspecificsubjectof
    article814.Insuchinstance,accordingtoarticle814,thetestamentarydispositioncontaining
    theinstitutionofheirsshouldbenotonlyreducedbutannulledinitsentiretyandallthe
    forcedheirs,includingtheomittedones,areentitledtoinheritinaccordancewiththelawof
    intestatesuccession.Itisthusevidentthat,if,inconstruingarticle814,theinstitutionofheirs
    thereindealtwithistobetreatedaslegaciesorbetterments,thespecialobjectofsaidarticle
    wouldbedestroyed,itsspecificpurposecompletelydefeated,andinthatwisethespecialrule
    thereinestablishedwouldberenderednugatory.Andthisiscontrarytothemostelementary
    ruleofstatutoryconstruction.Inconstruingseveralprovisionsofaparticularstatute,such
    constructionshallbeadoptedaswillgiveeffecttoall,andwhengeneralandparticular
    provisionsareinconsistent,thelattershallprevailovertheformer.(ActNo.190,secs.287
    and288.)
    ThequestionhereinpropoundedhasbeensquarelydecidedbytheSupremeCourtofSpainin
    acasewhereinabequestbyuniversaltitlewasmadewithpreteritionofheirsandthetheory
    wasadvancedthattheinstitutedheirsshouldbetreatedaslegatarios.TheSupremeCourtof
    Spainsaid:
    Elarticulo814,quepreceptuaentalescasosdepretericionlanulidaddelainstitucion
    deheredero,noconsienteinterpretacionalgunafavorablealapersonainstituidaenel
    sentidoantesexpuesto,auncuandoparezca,yenalguncasopudieraser,masomenos
    equitativa,porqueunanulidadnosignificaenDerechosinolasuposiciondequeel
    hechooelactonoseharealizado,debiendo,porlotanto,procedersesobretalbaseo
    supuesto,yconsiguientemente,enuntestmentodondefatelainstitucion,esobligado
    llamaralosherederosforzososentodocaso,comohabriaquellamaralosdeotra
    clase,cuandoeltestadornohubiesedistribuidotodossusbienesenlegados,siendo
    tantomasobligadaestaconsecuencialegalcuantoque,enmateriadetestamentos,
    sabidoes,seguntienedeclaradolajurisprudencia,conrepeticion,quenobastaque
    seaconocidalavoluntaddequeintestasiestavoluntadnoapareceenlaformayen
    lascondicionesquelaleyhaexigidoparaqueseavalidoyeficaz,porloque
    constituiriaunainterpertacionarbitraria,dentrodelderechopositivo,reputarcomo

    legatarioaunherederocuyainstitucionfueseanuladaconpretextodequeestose
    acomodabamejoralavoluntaddeltestador,puesauncuandoasifuese,seraesto
    razonparamodificarlaley,peoquenoautorizaaunainterpretacioncontrariaasus
    terminosyalosprincipiosqueinformanlatestamnetificaion,puesnoporqueparezca
    mejorunacosaenelterrenodelDerechoconstituyente,hayrasonparaconvertireste
    juicoenregladeinterpretacion,desvirtuandoyanulandoporesteprocedimientolo
    queellegislatorquiereestablecer.(6SanchezRoman,Volumen2.o,p.1138.)
    Itismaintainedthattheword"heredero"undertheCivilCode,isnotsynonymouswiththe
    term"heir"undertheCodeofCivilProcedure,andthatthe"heir"underthelatterCodeisno
    longerpersonallyliableforthedebtsofthedeceasedaswasthe"heredero"undertheCivil
    Code,shouldhisacceptancebepureandsimple,andfromallthesetheconclusionisdrawn
    thattheprovisionsofarticle814oftheCivilCoderegardingthetotalnullityoftheinstitution
    ofheirshasbecomeobsolete.Thisconclusioniserroneous.Itconfusesformwithsubstance.
    Itmustbeobserved,inthisconnection,thatinconstruingandapplyingaprovisionofthe
    CivilCode,suchmeaningofitswordsandphrasesashasbeenintendedbytheframers
    thereofshallbeadopted.IfthusconstrueditisinconsistentwiththeprovisionsoftheCodeof
    CivilProcedure,thenitshallbedeemedrepealed;otherwiseitisinforce.Repealsby
    implicationarenotfavoredbythecourtsandwhentherearetwoactsuponthesamesubject,
    effectshouldbegiventobothifpossible(Posadasvs.NationalCityBank,296U.S.,497).
    Theword"heir"asusedinarticle814oftheCivilCodemaynothavethemeaningthatithas
    undertheCodeofCivilProcedure,butthisinnowisecanpreventabequestfrombeingmade
    byuniversaltitleasisinsubstancethesubjectmatterofarticle814oftheCivilCode.Again,
    itmayalsobetruethatheirsundertheCodeofCivilProceduremayreceivethatbequestonly
    afterpaymentofdebtsleftbythedeceasedandnotbeforeasundertheCivilCode,butthis
    mayhaveabearingonlyuponthequestionastowhensuccessionbecomeseffectiveandcan
    innowaydestroythefactthatsuccessionmaystillbebyuniversalorspecialtitle.Sincea
    bequestmaystillbemadebyuniversaltitleandwithpreteritionofforcedheirs,itsnullityas
    providedinarticle814stillappliestherebeingnothinginconsistentwithitintheCodeof
    CivilProcedure.Whatisimportantandisthebasisforitsnullityisthenatureandeffectofthe
    bequestandnotitspossiblenamenorthemomentofitseffectivenessundertheCodeofCivil
    Procedure.
    Furthermore,therewereintheCodeofCivilProceduresectionsNos.755and756which
    read:
    SEC.755.Shareofchildbornaftermakingwill.Whenachildofatestatorisborn
    afterthemakingofawill,andnoprovisionisthereinmadeforhim,suchchildshall
    havethesameshareintheestateofthetestatorasifhehaddiedintestate;andshare
    ofsuchchildshallbeassignedtohimasincasesofintestateestates,unlessitis
    apparentfromthewillthatitwastheintentionofthetestatorthatnoprovisionshould
    bemadeforsuchchild.
    SEC.756.Shareofchildorissueofchildomittedfromwill.Whenatestatoromits
    toprovideinhiswillforanyofhischildren,orforissueofadeceasedchild,andit
    appearsthatsuchomissionwasmadebymistake,oraccident,suchchild,ortheissue
    ofsuchchild,shallhavethesameshareintheestateofthetestatorasifhehaddied
    intestate,tobeassignedtohimasinthecaseofintestateestates.
    ItistheseprovisionsoftheCodeofCivilProcedurethathaveaffectedsubstantiallyarticles
    814and851oftheCivilCode,buttheyhavebeenexpresslyrepealedbyActNo.2141,
    section1ofwhichreadasfollows:

    Sectionssevenhundredandfiftyfive,sevenhundredandfiftysix,sevenhundredand
    fiftyseven,sevenhundredandfiftyeight,andsevenhundredandsixtyofAct
    NumberedOnehundredandninety,entitled`AnActprovidingaCodeofProcedure
    inCivilActionsandSpecialProceedingsinthePhilippineIslandsareherebyrepealed
    andsuchprovisionsoftheCivilCodeasmayhavebeenamendedorrepealedbysaid
    sectionsareherebyrestoredtofullforceandeffects.(Emphasisours.)
    AmongtheprovisionsoftheCivilCodewhicharethusexpresslyrestoredtofullforceare
    undoubtedlyarticles814and851.Therecanbenopossibledoubt,therefore,thatthosetwo
    articlesareinforce.
    Article1080oftheCivilCodethatisalsoinvokeddeservesnoconsiderationexceptforthe
    observationthatithasnorelevancyintheinstantcase.
    OurattentionisdirectedtothecaseofEscuinvs.Escuin(11Phil.,332).Wehaveneverlost
    sightoftherulinglaiddowninthatcasewhichhasbeenreiteratedinEleazarvs.Eleazar(37
    Off.Gaz.,p.1782).IntheEscuincase,thedeceasedleftallhispropertytohisnaturalfather
    (notaforcedheir)andhiswifewithtotalpreteritionofhisfatherandwife.Without
    reconsideringthecorrectnessoftherulinglaiddowninthesetwocases,wewillnotethatthe
    doctrinestandsonfactswhicharedifferentfromthefactsinthepresentcase.Thereis
    certainlyadifferencebetweenacaseofpreteritioninwhichthewholepropertyislefttoa
    merefriendandacaseofpreteritioninwhichthewholepropertyislefttooneorsomeforced
    heirs.Ifthetestamentarydispositionbeannulledtotallyinthefirstcase,theeffectwouldbea
    totaldeprivationofthefriendofhisshareintheinheritance.Andthisiscontrarytothe
    manifestintentionofthetestator.Itmayfairlybepresumedthat,undersuchcircumstances,
    thetestatorwouldatleavegivehisfriendtheportionoffreedisposal.Inthesecondcase,the
    totalnullityofthetestamentarydispositionwouldhavetheeffect,notofdeprivingtotallythe
    institutedheirofhisshareintheinheritance,butofplacinghimandtheotherforcedheirs
    uponthebasisofequality.Thisisalsoinconsonancewiththepresumptiveintentionofthe
    testator.Preterition,generallyspeaking,isduemerelytomistakeorinadvertencewithout
    whichthetestatormaybepresumedtotreatalikeallhischildren.
    Andspeciallyisthistrueintheinstantcasewherethetestatoromittedthechildrenbyhisfirst
    marriageupontheerroneousbeliefthathehadgiventhemalreadymoresharesinhisproperty
    thanthosegiventothechildrenbyhissecondmarriage.Itwas,therefore,thethoughtofthe
    testatorthatthechildrenbyhisfirstmarriageshouldnotreceivelessthanthechildrenbyhis
    secondmarriage,andtothateffectisthedecisionofthisCourtsoughttobereconsidered.
    Motionforreconsiderationisherebydenied.
    Yulo,C.J.,Iconcurintheresult.
    Generoso,J.,concurs.

    SeparateOpinions
    OZAETA,J.,concurring:
    IconcurinthemajorityopinionaftermaturereflectiononthetwopointsdiscussedinJustice
    Bocobo'sdissent.

    Whetherornottherewaspreteritionofthetestator'ssurvivingchildrenbyhisfirstmarriage,
    maynotbeentirelybeyonddispute,becauseitisnotaltogetherimprobablethat,beforethe
    testatormadehiswill,saidchildrenofhishadreceivedcashadvancesfromhim,asstatedin
    clause8ofthewill.But,tomaymind.therecanbenodoubtthattherewaspreteritionofthe
    testator'sgrandchildrenbyhisdaughterGetulia,whodiedlongbeforethetestatormadehis
    will.Theselinealdescendantsofthetestator,whoarealsoforcedheirofhis,werecompletely
    ignoredandomittedinthewill.Inclauses7and8ofhiswill,thetestatordeclared:
    Seventh.Ideclarethatthechildrenbymyfirstwifehavenolongeranyparticipation
    inthepropertydescribedabove,astheyalreadyreceivedtheircorrespondingshares
    inmyexclusivepropertytoeachofmychildrenbymyfirstwifemustexceedwhat
    willcorrespondtoeachofmychildrenbymysecondwife.
    Eight.Isupplicatedmychildrenbymyfirstwifethattheyshouldnotcontestthismy
    lastwill,astheyhavealreadyreceivedtheirsharesinmyownproperty,muchmore
    thanwhatInowgivetothechildrenbymysecondwife,excludingyetwhatIhave
    giventothemasaidduringtheirfinancialtroublesandwhattheyhaveborrowed,
    whichtheyhavenotyetpaidmeandwhichInowcondonetothem.
    BoththetrialcourtandtheCourtofAppealsfoundineffectthatthesedeclarationsturnedout
    tobeunfoundedinfact,atleastinsofarastheyreferredtopropertiesotherthanmoneyalleged
    tohavebeenreceivedbythechildrenofthefirstmarriage.Bethatasitmay,Ibelievethe
    deceasedGetuliawasnotcomprehendedinsaiddeclarationanyway.Whenthetestatorsaid,
    "Ideclarethatthechildrenbymyfirstwifehavenolongeranyparticipationintheproperty
    describedabove,"hereferredonlytohischildrenwhowerelivingatthattimeandwho,he
    evidentlyexpected,wouldclaimsomeparticipationinthepropertyleftbyhim;Hecouldnot
    havereferredtoGetuliaalsobecauseshe,havingpassedaway,couldnolongerhaveorclaim
    anyparticipationinhisproperty.NeitherdidherefertoGetulia'schildren,forhedidnot
    mentionthematall.Again,whenthetestatorsaid,"Isupplicatedbychildrenbymyfirstwife
    thattheyshouldnotcontestthismylastwill,"hecouldnothavehadGetuliainmind,because
    heknewthedeceasedcouldnotcontesthiswill;andifhehadintendedtoincludedGetulia's
    children,hewouldhavementionedthemashisgrandchildren.Thecondonationofdebtsmade
    bythetestatorinclause8ofhiswillreferredtothedebtsofthosechildrenofhiswhomhe
    entreatedtorefrainfromcontestinghiswill,andsinceGetuliacouldnothavebeenentreated
    byhim,itislogicaltoconcludethatherpettydebtofP155wasnotembracedwithinthat
    condonation.Getuliahavingpassedawaylongbeforeherfathermadehiswill,hehad
    evidentlyforgottenheraswellasherpettydebt.
    TheconclusionthatGetuliaandherchildrenwerenotincludedintheabovequoted
    declarationsandthat,therefore,theywereentirelyomittedinthewill,isfurtherstrengthened
    bytheundisputedfactthatasidefromthesmallsumofP155borrowedbyherfromhim
    duringherlifetime,hehadnotgivenherorherchildrenanyportionofhisproperty.
    Therefore,whenthetestatorsolemnlydeclaredinclause7ofhiswillthathischildrenbyhis
    firstwifehadalreadyreceivedtheircorrespondingshareinhisexclusivepropertyinexcess
    evenofwhatwouldcorrespondtoeachofhischildrenbyhissecondwife,hecouldnothave
    hadGetuliaorherchildreninmind,foritisundisputablethathehadnotgivenherany
    propertywhatsoever.HecouldnothavehadtheP155inmind(1)becauseithadnotbeen
    givenbutonlyloanedtoher,and(2)becauseitwassorelativelytrivialanamountthathe
    couldnothaveconsidereditequaltothesharehelefttoeachofhischildrenbyhissecond
    wife.HisestatewasassessedbythecommitteeonappraisalsatP18,000,withaclaimagainst
    itofonlyP480.

    Inurgingthatthechildrenofthefirstmarriagebegivenonlyashareintheshortlegitime,the
    minorityopinionsaysthatthetestatorhasmade"aclearandexplicitdeclarationinhiswill
    thatthechildrenofthesecondmarriageshallbepreferred."Ontheotherhand,themajority
    opinionmaintainsthatthetestatoromittedthechildrenofthefirstmarriageuponthe
    erroneousbeliefonhispartthathehadgiventhemagreatershareinhispropertythanthat
    lefttothechildrenofthesecondmarriage.Fromthisthemajorityinferthatthetestatordid
    notintendtodiscriminateagainsthischildrenbyhisfirstmarriagebygivingthemlessthan
    whathelefttohischildrenbyhissecondmarriage.Themajorityviewassumesthatthe
    declarationsofthetestatorinclauses7and8ofhiswill,althoerroneous,weremadeingood
    faith.Ontheotherhand,theminorityviewsupposesthatthetestatorintendedtopreferhis
    childrenbyhissecondwifebyleavingtothemallhispropertysothatthechildrenbythefirst
    marriageareentitledonlytotheirshareintheshortlegitimewhichbylawthedecedentcould
    nowithholdfromthem.Ithinktheminorityviewisuntenable.Intheabsenceofproofit
    cannotbepresumedthatthetestatormadetheabovequoteddeclarationsinbadfaiththat
    hemadethemknowingthatitwasnottruethathehadgiveneachofhissurvivingchildrenby
    hisfirstwifeatleastanequalifnotagreatershareinhisinheritancethanwhathelefttoeach
    ofhischildrenbyhissecondwife.Butifhehadmadethosedeclarationsinbadfaithoras
    subterfugetodeprivehischildrenandgrandchildrenbyhisfirstmarriageoftheirlegalshare
    inhisinheritance,hecouldonlyhavedonesowiththeintentiontofrustratetheirright.Inthat
    casethepreteritionwouldonlyassumeadifferentform,voluntaryinsteadofinvoluntary.But
    theresultwouldbethesame.AsstatedbytheSupremeCourtofSpaininitsdecisionofJune
    17,1908,thepreteritionofaforcedheir"puedeserdebidaaignoranciadequeexistiera,u
    olvidoopropositodeburlarlosderechosquelaleylesreconoce,supuestostodesque
    desvirtuanlafuerzayeficaciamoraldeaquellavoluntadyquejustificanlaanulaciondesu
    expresion."

    BOCOBO,J.,dissenting:
    Afteracarefulstudyofthiscase,Iamconstrainedtodissentfromtheresolutionofthe
    majoritydenyingthemotionforreconsideration.IbelievethejudgmentoftheCourtof
    Appealsshouldbeaffirmedbecause:
    First,therehasbeennopreteritionunderarticle814,CivilCode.
    Second,evensupposingthattherehasbeenapreterition,thechildrenofthesecondmarriage
    are,however,entitledtothethirdforfreedisposalandtothethirdformejora,inadditionto
    theirsharesinthestrictorshortlegitime.
    I
    ThereIsnoPreterition
    ThereisnopreteritionbecausethefindingsofboththeCourtofFirstInstanceoftheCourtof
    Appealsshowthatallthechildrenofthefirstmarriagehavereceived,inpropertyandincash,
    apartoftheirshortlegitime.Oneoftherequisitesofpreteritionisthatoneorsomeofthe
    heirsofthedirectlinebetotallydeprivedoftheirlegitime.AsManresasays(Vol.6,pages
    356357,4thEd.):
    Quelaomisionseacompleta.Estacondicionsededucedelmismoarticulo814,y
    resultaconevidenciaalrealcionarestearticuloconel815.Elherederoforzosoa
    queineltestadordejaalgoporcualqueirtituloensutestamento,nosehalla

    propiamenteomitido,puesselenombrayselereconoceparticipacionenlosbienes
    hereditarios.Podriadiscutirseenelarticulo814,sieraononecesarioquese
    reconocieselderechodelherederocomotalheredero,peroelarticulo815desvanece
    estaduda.Aquelseocupadelaprivacioncompletaototal,tacita;este,dela
    privacionpartcial.Losefectosdebenseryson,comoveremos,completamente
    distintos.
    Astoproperty,EleuterioreceivedparcelNo.4bywayofdonation.Thetrialcourtfoundthat
    saidparcel"appearstohavebeendonatedbyAgripinoNeritohissonEleuterio,andwhich
    maybebroughttothecommonmass."InthejudgmentoftheCourtofFirstInstance,itis
    orderedthatsaidparcelNo.4"shouldbebroughttothecommonmass."
    Moreover,thereisalargeparceloflandcontaining182.6373hectareswhich,accordingtoa
    findingoftheCourtofAppeals,"isstillclaimedtobethepropertynotonlyofthechildrenof
    thefirstmarriagebutalsoofthoseofthesecondmarriage."ThedecisionoftheCourtof
    Appealsmakesthesefindingsoffact:
    AsregardsthatlargeparceloflandadjointparcelNo.1,itiscontendedthatafterthe
    courthaddeniedtheregistrationthereof,AgripinoNeriyChavesabandonedthesaid
    landandthatlateronsomeofthechildrenofthefirstmarriagepossessedit,thereby
    acquiringtitleandinterestthereinbyvirtueofoccupationandnotthrough
    inheritance.Itisnottruethatthisparcelcontaining182.6373hectaresisnowassessed
    inthenamesofsomeofthechildrenofthefirstmarriage,forasshownonTax
    DeclarationNo.9395,Exhibit11g,theownersofthepropertyareAgapitaNeride
    ChavesyHermanos.Apparently,thesaidlandisstillclaimedtobethepropertynot
    onlyofthechildrenofthefirstmarriagebutalsoofthoseofthesecondmarriage.
    (Emphasisours.)
    ItistruethataccordingtotheCourtofAppeals,Getuliaorherheirsdidnotreceiveanyshare
    ofthepropertyofherfather,butthetrialcourtfoundthatGetuliawasindebtedtoherfather
    intheamountofP155whichdebtiscondonedinclause8ofthewill.
    Furthermore,itisunquestionedtatallthechildrenofthefirstmarriage(exceptGetuliawho
    debtofP155hasbeencondonedinthewill)hadcertainparcelsintheirnamesfortax
    purposes.Thefactthatsaidparcelswereeitherpubliclandoccupiedanddevelopedbythe
    testator,ordidnotbelongtohim,cannotsupportthetheoryofpreteritionbecausetheessence
    ofpreteritionistheomissionofanydescendantorascendant.Ifhisrightasanheiris
    recognizedinanyway,thereisnopreterition,andhisremedyisthatprovidedinarticle815,
    whichistohavehissharecompletedincasehereceivedlessthanhislegitime.Inthiscase,
    thetestatoradmitsthathischildrenofthefirstmarriagearealsohislawfulheirsbutstates
    theyhavealreadyreceivedtheirrespectiveshares.
    Asforthecashadvances,thetrialcourtfoundthatthesixchildren,threeAgripino,Getulia
    andCelerinawereindebtedtothetestatorintheamountsofP500,P155andP120,
    respectively.Withregardtotheotherchildren,EleuterioAgapitaandRosario,clause8ofthe
    willsays:
    Eight.Isupplicatedmychildrenbymyfirstwifethattheyshouldnotcontestthismy
    lastwill,astheyhavealreadyreceivedtheirsharesinmyownproperty,muchmore
    thanwhatInowgivetothechildrenbymysecondwife,excludingyetwhatIhave
    giventothemasaidduringtheirfinancialtroublesandwhattheyhaveborrowed,
    whichtheyhavenotyetpaidmeandwhichInowcondonetothem.(Emphasisours.)

    Itwillbenoticedthatthetestatorintheaboveclausespeaksoftwokindsofcashadvancesto
    hischildren:(1)aidfromtheirfatherduringtheirfinancialtroubles;and(2)amounts
    borrowedbythemfromtheirfather.Intheabsenceofprooftothecontrary,itmaybe
    presumedthatthetestatorwasreferringtoallhischildrenofthefirstmarriagewhenhe
    stated:"excludingyetwhatIhavegiventothemasaidduringtheirfinancialtroubles.."Itis
    hardtobelievethatduringthewholelifetimeofthetestator,whowaswelltodo,andlivedto
    theadvancedageof86years,anyofhischildrenofthefirstmarriagedidnotreceiveevena
    smallfinancialaidfromthefather.
    Allthechildrenofthefirstmarriagehavingreceivedapartoftheirshortlegitime,eitherin
    propertyorcashorboth,thereinopreterition.Thelawapplicableisnotarticle814but
    articles815and817.CivilCode,whichprovide:
    ART.815.Elherederoforzosoaquieneltestadorhayadejadoporcualquiertitulo
    menosdelalegitimaquelecorresponda,podrapedirelcomplementodelamisma.
    ART.817.Lasdispocisionestestmentariasquemenguenlalegitimadelosherederos
    forzosos,sereduciran,apeticiondeestos,enloquefuereninoficiosasoexcesivas.
    Thesearticlesgovernwheretheheirhasreceived,eitherinthewillorbydonationintervivos,
    apartofhislegitime.Commentingonarticle815.Manresasays(Vol.6,page366):
    Elespiritudelarticulo815resultaevidente:cuantoelherederoforzosonohassido
    olvidadoporeltestandor,cuandohatomadoalgodelosbienesherditarios,solo
    puedereclamarqueselecompletesulegitima.Laletradelarticulo,aunqueaplicable
    especialmentealasdisposicionestestamentarias,norepugnasuextensionatodoacto
    dedisposiciondeltestadorportitulolucrativo.Yademas,elparrafo1.delaritculo
    819,eldecirquelasdonacioneshechasaloshijosimputanasulegitimademuestra
    queloquelosherederosforzososrecibenenvidadeltestadordeeste,seentiende
    comorecibidoporsulegitimaenelmomentodesumuerte,y,porconsiguiente,como
    dejadoporeltestadoratitulodeherencia.
    Thechildrenofthefirstmarriagenothavingbeenentirelyforgotten,thewillshouldbe
    respectedandcarriedout,butthechildrenofthefirstmarriageshouldhavetheirrespective
    sharesinthestrictlegitimecompletedaftertakingintoaccounttheamountsalreadyreceived
    bythemfromtheirfather.
    Asfortheconcurringopinion,Ifinditdifficulttobelievethatthetestatordidnothavein
    mindGetuliaorherchildreninclauses7and8ofthewill.Myreasonsarethefollowing:
    1.Thetestatorclearlyintendedthathiswillshouldnotbecontested.Whenhesaid"I
    supplicatedmychildrenbymyfirstwifethattheyshouldnotcontestthismylastwill,"itis
    notventuresometopresumethathealsoreferredtothechildrenofGetuliabecausethey,as
    thetestator'sgrandchildren,werealsohisheirsbyrightofrepresentationoftheirmother.Itis
    mostunlikelythatthetestatorwouldfrownuponacontestbyhischildrenofthefirstmarriage
    butnotuponacontestbysaidgrandchildren.
    2.Inhiscondonationofthemoneyadvancestohischildrenofthefirstmarriageinclause8,it
    isimprobablethathehadforgottenhisdaughterGetuliaalthoughshehadbeendeadfor
    severalyears.Isthememoryofadeceaseddaughterblottedoutinthefather'smindprecisely
    atthemomentwhenheissearchinghisownconscienceashemakeshiswill?Moreover,did
    notthepresenceofGetulia'schildrenservetoremindthetestatoroftheirmother?

    Getulia'sdebtofP155havingbeencondonedinclause8,itfollowsthatarticles815and817
    oftheCivilCode,supra,areapplicable.ThechildrenofGetuliaare,therefore,entitledto
    havetheirshortlegitimecompletedaccordingtothearticlesaforesaid,buttheymustreturnto
    theestate,bywayofcollation,theamountofP155underarticle11038,paragraph1ofthe
    CivilCodewhichprovidesthus:
    ART.1038.Cuandolosnietossucedanalabueloenrepresentaciondelpadre,
    concurriendoconsustiosoprimos,colacionarantodoloquedebieracolacionarel
    padresiviviera,aunquenolohayaheredado.
    II
    TheMandasandMejorasAreValid
    Butgrantingthattherewasapreteritionbecauseoneorsomeofthechildrenofthefirst
    marriageneverreceived,bydonationintervivosorbywill,anythingfromtheirfather,itis
    clearfromthewillinquestionthatthechildrenofthesecondmarriageareentitledtothethird
    forfreedisposalandtothethirdformejora(inadditiontotheirshareinthestrictlegitime).
    Thatistosay,Ithinkweshouldapplyinthiscasethisprovisionofarticle814onpreterition:
    "perovaldranlasmandasymejorasencuantonoseaninoficiosas."
    ThemajorityresolutionreliesuponquotationsfromManresaandSanchezRomantosupport
    thepropositionthattheannulmentofthe"Instituciondeheredero"entirelyannulsthewill.
    However,themajorityislaboringunderamisunderstandingofthe"instituciondeheredero"
    undertheSpanishlaw.Itisthatmisconceptionwhichhadledthemajorityintoawrong
    interpretationofwhatthosetwoSpanishjuristsmeanwhentheysaythattheannulmentofthe
    "instituciondeheredero"istotal.Itistobenoted,atthisjuncture,thatbothauthors,while
    statingthatpreteritionentirelyannulsthe"instituciondeheredero,"neverthelessadmitthat
    "manda"and"mejoras"whicharenotinofficiousarevalid.SaysManresa(Vol.6,pages359,
    360,4thEd.):
    Enelfondolacuestionesidentica.Eltestadorpuedesiempredisponerasuarbitrio
    delapartelibre.Ellegitimario,contralavoluntadexpresadeltestador,solotiene
    derechoasulegitima.Preteridoodesheredadosinjustacausa,lalegitimaessuya.
    Desheredadoopreterido,laporcionlibrenolecorresponde,cuandoeltestadorla
    asignaaotro.(Italicsours.)
    Lainterpretacionquerectamentesedesprendedelarticulo814,esladequesolo
    valen,yesoencuantonoseaninoficiosas,lasdisposicioneshechasotitulodelegado
    omejora.Encuantoalainstituciondeheredero,seanula.Loqueseanuladejade
    existir,entodo,oenparte?Noseaadelimitacionalguna,comoenelarticulo851,
    enelqueseexpresaencuantoperjudiquealalegitimadeldesheredado.Debe,pues,
    entendersequelaanulacionescompletaototal,yqueestearticulo,comoespecialen
    elcasoquelemotiva,rigeconpreferenciaal817.
    Todaslasdemasdisposicionestestamentariasreferentesalosbienes,comolos
    legadosylasmejoras,ensucaso,continuaransubsistentes,noobstantelapretericion,
    siemprequenoseaninoficiosas,estoes,siemprequelasmejorasnoexcedandel
    tercio,yloslegadosconlasdonacionesporcausademuerte,ylasdonaciones
    colacionables,noexcedandelapardedeherenciadelibredisposicion.Siexcedieren,
    sereduciranporlasreglasdelCodigo,hastadejarasalvolalegitima.(Emphasis
    ours.)

    Furtheron(p.363)Manresaadds:
    Estimadalaaccion,yanuladalainstituciondeheredero,seabrelasucesionintestada
    respectoalapartedebienesdequeeltestador,dentrodelaporcionlibrenohubiese
    dispuestoenvirtuddelegado,mejoraodonacion.
    SanchezRomanalsostates:
    Encambio,niporladesheredacionniporlapretericionpierdesufuerzael
    testamento,encuantoadichoterciolibre,sisetratadedescendientes;olamitad,si
    setratadeascendientes,yadesherederos,yapreteridos,porque,niporelunoniporel
    otromedio,seanulamasquelainstituciondeheredero,engeneral,ytotalmentepor
    lapretericion,ysoloencuantoperjudiquealalegitimadeldesheredadoporla
    desheredacion;perosubsistiendo,enamboscasos,todasaquellasotrasdisposiciones
    quenoserefierenalainstituciondeherederoysehallendentrodellimite
    cuantitativodeltercioomitaddelibredisposicion,segunquesetratede
    descendientesoascendientes,preteridosodesheredados.(Emphasisours.)
    xxxxxxxxx
    Noobstantelapretericion,'valdranlasmandasylegadosencuantonosean
    inoficiosas'.Eltextoesterminanteynonecesitamayorexplicacion,despuesdelo
    dicho,quesupropialetra,anoserparaobservarqueconstituyeunaconfirmacion
    indudabledelosefectosdelapretericion,encuantoalcanzansolo,perototalmente,a
    laanulaciondelainstituciondeheredero,peronoaladelasmandasymejorasen
    cuantonoseaninoficiosasoperjudiquenalelegitimadelospreteridos;calificativo
    detales,comosinonimolegaldeexcesivas,queenotrosarticulos,comoel817,
    establecelaley.(6SanchezRoman,Volumen2.o11401141.)
    Theseeminglyselfcontradictorystatementsofeachofthesetwoeminentjuristsare
    confusing,astheyhaveconfusedthemajority,unlessheexaminesthehistoric
    backgroundofthe"instituciondeheredero"intheSpanishCivilCode.
    Article764oftheCivilCodeProvides:
    Eltestamentoseravalidoaunquenocontengainstituciondeheredero,oestano
    comprendalatotalidaddelosbienes,yaunqueelnombradonoacetelaherenciaosea
    incapazdeheredar.
    Enestoscasossecumpliranlasdisposicionestestamentariashechasconarregloalas
    leyes,yelremanentedelosbienespasaraalosherederoslegitimos.
    Manresaexplainsthedevelopmentofthe"instituciondeheredero"thus(vol.6,pages8586,
    4thEd.):
    Lainstituciondeherederoeselactoenvirtuddelcualeltestadordesignalapersonao
    personasquehandesucederleensusderechos,accionesyobligaciones;ysu
    importanciaenlatestamentifaccionesindiscutible,puestoquedeellasurgela
    continuaciondelapersonalidaddeltestador,sibienconlaslimitacionesimpuestas
    porelmismo.Enefecto,porvirtuddedichainstitucion,lapersonaopersonas
    instituidasporherederassucedenalcausanteenlauniversalidaddesusderechosy
    obligaciones,enlosterminosqueexpusimosalcomentarlosarticulos659y660.

    Hoyesaimportanciahacedidoalguntanto,aunquenohadesaparecidoporcompleto,
    puestoquenoesnecesarialainstituciondeherederosparalavalidezdeladisposicion
    mortiscausa;peroenloantiguollegoaserconsideradacomolacabezayraizdel
    testamento,dandolugarsufaltaalanulidadeineficaciadelmismo.
    Enlasseccionesprecedenteshemosvenidorefiriendonosconrepeticionados
    sistemassucesoriosdistintos:unoformalistayrituario,mantenidoconstantemente
    porelderechoromanoaunenlostiemposdemayorlaxituddelmismo,yotromas
    libreyexpansivo,cuyagenuinarepresentacionsehallaenelOrdenamientideAlcala.
    Yesedualismoprofundoqueentoncesobservamosentrelalegislacionromanayla
    germana,hubodemanifestarsetambienclaramenteenlamateriarelativaala
    instituciondeherederos.
    Nohemosderepetiraquiideasexpuestasyaenlareseahistoricaconque
    encabezamoslaintroduccionalestudiodeltratadodesucesiones,peroconviene
    recordar,paralamejorinteligenciadelareformallevadaacaboennuestrasantiguas
    leyes,quelanaturalezadelosprimitivostestamentosromanos,asicomola
    organizaciondelafamiliaenaquellapotentenacion,ysuscaracteresdeuniversalidad
    yperpetuidad,impusieronlanecesidaddeunherederoquecontinuaselapersonalidad
    juridicadelcausante,revistiendoasuvezadichainstituciondelasmismas
    condicionesdenecesidad,universalidadyperpetuidad.Eranecesarialainstitucion
    comocabezaysolemnidadinternadeltestamento:erauniversal,puestoqueteniaque
    serhechasobretodoelpatrimonio,nopermitiendosetestarsobreunapartedeelyno
    sobreelresto;yerapor,ultimo,perpetua,porquesiendoelmediodelacontinuacion
    ysubsistenciadeltestador,nopodiaserordenadalainstitucionconlimitacionde
    tiempo,yelheredero,unavezaceptadalaherencia,nopodiadejardeserlo.
    Porelcontrario,nienlalegislacioncastellana,nielelFueroJuzgo,encarnaciondel
    elementogodo;nienlosFueronmunicipales,inspiradosenelmismoespiritu;nienel
    FueroViejodeCastilla,niaunenelFueroReal,seencuentradisposicionalgunaque
    leatribuyadichocaracter,acusandoenelloslainstituciondeherederosunconcepto
    completamentediverso,hastaquelasPartidas,sintenerencuentaloselementos
    distintosdenuestroderechoyladiferenteorganizaciondelafamiliaespoala,
    importodeplanoladoctrinaromana,yconellatodoelcomplicadoorganismodesu
    sistemasucesorio.Seguntenemosdichosya,elOrdenamientodeAlcalahizo
    desaparecereseregimentanenoposicionconelderechopatrio,asignandoala
    institucionloscaracteresdelibertadeindependenciaquehaconservadohastala
    publicaciondelCodigo,puestoquelasleyesposterioresadichoOrdenamientono
    introdujeronmodificacionalguna,manteniendolalibertaddelainstitucionde
    herederos,sinmaslimitacionesqueelrespetoalamoralyalosderechos
    legitimarios,asicomomantuvolaindependenciaabsolutaentredichainstitucionyel
    testamento,hastaelpuntodeservalidoeste,aunquenohayaherederonosehaya
    dispuestoeneldelatotalidaddelaherencia,locualpermitiaqueelcausantemuriese
    partetestadoyparteintestado.(Emphasisours.)
    Commentingonarticle764,Manresasays(Vol.6,page93):
    Siavirtuddeelnoesnecesariayaparalavalidedelostestamentosqueenellos
    constelainstituciondeherederos,logicadeducciondedichoprincipioesqueel
    testamentonoseinvalideaunquenocontengadichainstituciononocomprendala
    totalidaddelosbienes,onoresulteeficazlainstitucion,hecha,yapornoaceptarla
    herenciaelinstituido,oporseresteincapaz.

    Theonlypurpose,therefore,ofthe"instituciondeheredero"istohavesomeonecontinuethe
    personalityofthetestator,sothattheremaybesomeonewhoshouldbepersonallyliablefor
    alltheobligationsofthetestatorandwhosucceedstoalltherightsofthedecedent.Butsuch
    "instituciondeheredero"isnolongeressential,sothattheremaybeavalidwill,accordingto
    article764,althoughthereisno"instituciondeheredero."AsManresasays,sincethe
    OrdenamientodeAcalathereisanabsoluteindependencebetweenthe"institucionde
    heredero"andthewill.(Vol.6,page86.)
    Therefore,inthecaseunderconsideration,theannulmentofthe"instituciondeheredero"on
    accountofpreteritiondoesnotrenderthewillineffective.
    Thatthepreteritionunderarticle814doesnotentirelyinvalidatethewillisunanimously
    maintainedbytheauthors.
    SanchezRoman,supra,saysthattheeffectsofpreterition,"alcanzan,solo,perototalmente,a
    laanulaciondelainstituciondeheredero,peronoaladelasmandasymejorasencuantono
    seaninofociosasoperjudiquenalalegitimadelospreteridos."
    Manresastates(Vol.6,pages362363):
    Parapedirlaanulacion,correspondealherederopreteridounaaccion,quesiemprese
    hallamadoquerelladeinoficiosotestamento.
    xxxxxxxxx
    Estimadalaaccion,yanuladalainstituciondeheredero,seabrelasucesionintestada
    respectoalapartedebienesdequeeltestador,dentrodelaporcionlibrenohubiese
    dispuestoenvirtuddelegado,mejoresodonacion."(Italicsours.)
    ScaevolainVol.XIV,page383ofhisworkontheSpanishCivilCodehasthistosay:
    AccionesdefensivasdelegitimaPrescripciondelasmismas.Ennuestro
    entender,noconviveconelCodigoenmateriadepretericionlatradicionalquerella
    deinoficiosotestamento.Apoyamosnuestraopinionendosrazones:primera,no
    nombrarlaasielCodigo,nicontenerdoctrinaequivalente,tantoenlaseccionde
    legitimas,comoenladeprescripcion;segunda,sostenerdoctrinacontrariaaaquella
    dequederivabalasobredichaaccion.
    Laquerellaseencaminabaadestruireltestamento,encasodepretericion;elCodigo,
    conconocimientodecausa,conconcienciadeladoctrina,precisamenteenoposicion
    aella,noautorizataldestruccionencuantoconsignalanulidaddelainstitucion
    hereditaria,perolavalidezdelasmandasymejoras.Noexistiendoelantecedente,no
    puedeexistirelconsiguiente;derogadoelprincipiodoctrinalquedabavidaala
    querelladeinoficiosotestamento,desaparecioestaconel.Hamuertoalsucumbirla
    legislaciondelaqueeraelementointegrante,decuyocuerpoformabaparte.
    Hoylaaccionseencaminaalanulidaddelainstitucionhereditariacomomediopara
    adquirirelherederoforzosolaporcionquelesealalaley.Tratasesencillamentede
    unaaccionreal,comunuordinario,devidalegaldetreintaaos."(Italicsours.)

    GoyenainhisbookontheProjectof1851,commentingonarticle644ofthesame,which
    providesthatpreterition"anulalainstituciondeheredero;perovaldranlasmandasymejoras
    encuantonoseaninoficiosas"(theexactwordingofarticle814ofthepresentSpanishCivil
    Code)observes(Vol.2,pages9495):
    Laley24deToro,u8,titulo6,libro10,NovisimaRecopilacion,dice:'Cuandoel
    testamentoserompiereoanulareporcausadepretericionoexheredacion,etc.,nopor
    esodejedevalerlamejoriadeltercioyquinto.'Excausaexhaeredationisvel
    praeteritionisirritumesttestamentumcuantumadinstituciones,caeteranaumque
    firmapermanent.Autentica,titulo28,libro6delCodigo.
    Elarticulodemayorclaridadylatituc,oporlomenosfijeza,aestasdisposiciones
    PatriayRomana.
    ApesardelaleydeToro,senoshaenseadoenlasescuelas,quelapretericion
    anulabaenteramenteeltestamento,yquenoestabancorregidasporellalasleyes3,
    titulo7,y1,titulo8,Partida6,queasilodeclaraban:enDerechoRomanohemos
    aprendidocomoinconcusolocontrariodelaautenticaenelcasodepretenciondeun
    herederosuyo;yestoeralocierto,porquelaautenticafuetomadadelaNovela115,
    capitulos3y4,enlaquedeintentosetratadeladesheredacionydesuscausas,yde
    larescisiondeltestamento,porlaquerelladeinoficioso;deconsiguiente,la
    desheredacionhacereferenciaalpadre;lapretericionalamadre,puesrespectode
    ellaconstituyeunadesheredaciontacita.
    SalaensusInstitucionesRomanoHispanas,parrafo5,titulo13,libro2,estaporlas
    leyesdePartida;yensuIlustracion,numero3,titulo5,libro2,sostienelocontrario,
    yenapoyodelaleydeTorocitalaautentica.'Loestablecieronasi(dice)lasleyes
    Romanas,ylopersuadelaequidad,quenopermitetengalugarlapenamasalladel
    particularenqueocurriolaindignidadosinrazonquelamotivo.'
    Prescindiendodetodoesto,elarticulohacesencilloyclaroloquehastaahorahasido
    embrolladoydudoso.
    Finally,Prof.NicasioLopezR.GomezoftheUniversityofValladolidsaysinhisTratado
    TeoricoLegaldelDerechodeSucesion,"Vol.I,pages316319:
    EnRoma,lavalidezonulidaddelainstituciondeheredero,envolvialadeterminaciondelos
    efectosjuridicolegalesdeltestamento,osunegacion,puestoque,sieralasolemnidadinterna
    ynecesariadeltestamento,yporconsecuencia,sucabezayfundamento,aquelnopodia
    subsistircuandoensuesenciaconcurrieraunviciodenulidad,oestahubierasidoomitida
    etsineillanonesttestamentum....Reconocidoelprincipiodelaslegitimasydesenvuelto
    conarregloalaclasificaciondelosherederossuyos,suyosynecesariosyvoluntarios,losdos
    primeroshabiandesernecesariamenteinstituidosojustamentedesheredados:yporultimola
    desheredacionjustaconcausalegalyexpresaprivabadelalegitimaalherederoaquiense
    imponia.Ladesheredacioninjustasincausaoconcausafalsanopodiaproduciresteefecto,
    dejandocompletamenteasalvoelderechodelegitima,yotorgabaaldesheredadolaaccion
    extraordinariaparareclamarcontralainstitucionporinoficiosa,conelefectoabsolutodeno
    referirsesolamentealaporcionlegitima,sinoqueanuladalainstitucionquedabannulastodas
    lasdemasdisposicionesdeltestamento.
    Lapretericiondeunherederoforzosotambienproduciaelmismoefectodenulidad.

    LasLeyesdePartidaalreproducirladoctrinaromanacontodosurigorismoy
    encadenamientodelasinstitucionessucesorias,importaronennuestralegislaciontodaslas
    disposicionesreferentesalaquejadeinoficiosotestamento,sunaturaleza,extension,
    personasquepodianejercitarlaenlalinearectaascendenteydescendenteyenlacolateral
    cuandolainstitucionrecayeraenpersonatorpopostergandoaloshermanosyporultimoen
    cuantoaltiempooplazodesuejercicio.
    LaL.de.titulo19delOrdenamientodeAlcala,consuespiritudetransicionregeneradordel
    primitivoDerechoEspaol,llevoacabounatransformacioncompletaeimportantisima,pues
    aldeclararlaindependenciaabsolutaentrelosejectosdelainstituciondeherederoylosdel
    testamento,laextensiondelaquejadelainoficiosidaddeeste,quedolimitadaestrictamentea
    reclamarcontralainstitucionencuantofuerainoficiosa,percibiendoeldesheredadoo
    preteridolaporcionlegitimaquelecorrespondiera,subsistiendolamismainstitucionen
    cuantoalosbienesquetuvieranelconceptodelibres,asicomotodaslasdemasclausulasdel
    testamento.
    ConsecuenciadeestoydeladeclaraciondelaL.9,deToro,losdescendientesy
    ascendientes,injustamentedesheredadosopreteridos,podianentablarlaacciono
    querelladeinoficiosotestamentocomoherederosforzososdesucausante,conelsolo
    efectodepercepciondesulegitima,sinanulareltestamentoniaunlainstitucionde
    herederoqueunicamenteserescindiaencuantoaaquellaporciso;yconrespectoa
    loscolateralesohermanos,perdieronelderechodeejercitarlacitadaacciondesdeel
    momentoquefueronprivadosdelconceptodeherederosforzosos,quetenainenel
    unicocasodeserpostergadosapersonatorpe,porhaberquedadosinefectoeste
    calificativoylasdistincionesquehicieronlasleyesromanasydePartidas.
    Conestosbrevisimosantecedenteshistoricospodemospasarafijarelverdadero
    conceptodelaquejadeinoficiosotestamentoparadespuesexponerladoctrina
    vigenteacercadeella.
    Seentiendeporquejaoquerelladeinoficiosotestamento,laaccionquecompetealos
    herederosforzosospreteridosoinjustamentedesheredadossincausaoconexpresion
    deellasiendofalsa,parareclamarlaporciondebienesquecomolegitimales
    corresponde.
    xxxxxxxxx
    Laimpugnaciondelainstitucionhechaentestamento,porelherederodesheredadoo
    preteido,puedeefectuarsedelsomaneras:porelejerciciodirectodelaaccioncontra
    elinstituidoparaquereconozcayabonelalegitima;oporexcepcion,cuandoel
    desheredadosehallareenposesiondelaherenciayelinstituidointerpusieralaaccion
    correspondienteparapercibirla.
    Elefectoinmediatodelaquejadeinoficiosotestamentoesanularlainstitucionde
    herederoencuantoperjudiquelosderechoslegitimariosdelactor.(Emphasisours.)
    Applyingtheabovecitations,whatistheeffectofpreteritioninthiscase?Doesitrenderthe
    willofAgripinoNeriyChavezentirelyvoid,sothatanintestatesuccessionmustbedeclared
    astoallhisproperty?Thenegativeanswerisinescapablebecauseofthetruemeaningof
    "instituciondeheredero"asalreadysetforth,andthescopeofthe"quejadeinoficioso
    testamento"asexplainedbythewritersabovequoted.

    Anularalainstituciondeheredero"doesnotmeanthatthewholewillisofnoeffect.
    Itherebynullifiestheclausedesignatingthechildrenofthesecondmarriageasthe
    only"herederos"orcontinuersofthetestator'spersonalityandintheplaceofsuch
    clause,article814ordersthatallthechildren,ofbothmarriages,shallbesuch
    continuersofAgapitoNeri'spersonality.Thisdoesnotmeanthatallthechildrenshall
    dividethewholeestateequally,bytherulesofintestacy.Itsimplysignifiesthatthe
    childrenofbothmarriagesbecomecontinuersofNeri'spersonality,andassuchliable
    personallyforallofNeri'sobligations,sothatunderthesystemsoftheSpanishCivil
    Code,whichdistinguishes"herederos"from"legatarios,"allthechildrenareliable
    personallyforthedebtsoftheirfather,evenbeyondandinexcessoftheproperty
    receivedbyeachofthem.Theyarealsoentitledtoallhisrights,buttheextentof
    suchrightsisdeterminedbythewill.Theyareall"residuarylegatees"undertheCode
    ofCivilProcedure,sothatifthereisanypropertyundisposedofbyhiswill,allthe
    childrenshalldivideitequally.
    WithregardtotheSpanishremedyof"quejadeinoficiosotestamento,"theauthoritiesalready
    citedlimittheeffectofthesame,incaseofpreterition,undertheCivilCodetotherecovery
    ofthelegitimatepertainingtotheheirwhohasbeenomitted.Thisisconformitywitharticle
    814whichsaysthatthemandasandmejorasarevalidinsofarastheyarenotinofficious.
    Havemandasandmejorasbeengiventothechildrenofthesecondmarriage?Itisplainthat
    theintentionofthetestatoristogivetothechildrenofthesecondmarriageallthatremainsof
    hisproperty;thechildrenofthefirstmarriagehavingalreadyreceivedfromhimtheirshares,
    inadditiontosumsofmoneybywayofaidandloan.Thisbeingso,andinasmuchasthe
    greaterincludestheless,hisdispositioninfavorofhisyoungerchildrenshouldbeupheldas
    tothetwothirdsofhisremainingproperty,viz:theonethirdforfreedisposalandtheone
    thirdformejora(inadditiontotheirshareintheshortlegitimate).
    First,astothethirdforfreedisposal.ThedecisionofthisCourtsaysthereisNo"legacy
    expresslymadeintheirbehalfconsistingofthethirdavailableforfreedisposal."Ibelieveit
    isillogicaltorequireinthiscasethatthewillshouldexpresslymakea"legacy"fromthethird
    forfreedisposal.Itisenoughthatthetestatorgivesallhisremainingpropertytohischildren
    ofthesecondmarriage;fromthatitshouldnotbehardtodeclarethanitwashisintentionto
    givethematleastthethirdforfreedisposal.Inlegalconceptanythinggivenfromthethird
    availableforfreedisposalisa"manda"or"legado,"whetheritissonamedornot.
    Second,asforthethirdavailableformejora,Iagreewiththedecisionthatthereisnoexpress
    mejora.ButIthinkthereisatacitmejora.Now,atacitmejoraiscreatedwhenthetestator
    givessomethingtoanyofhischildrenwhichcannotbecontainedinthethirdavailablefor
    freedisposal.Article828provides:
    ART.828.Lamandaolegadohechoporeltestadoraunodeloshijoso
    descendientesnosereputaramejorasinocuandoeltestadorhayadeclarado
    expresamenteserestasuvoluntad,ocuandonoquepaenlapartelibre.
    Hereagain,weshouldnotrequirethatthisportionshouldbeexpresslycalledbythetestatora
    "mejora"ora"manda"becauseitwouldhavebeenillogicalandimpropertospeakof
    "mejora"or"manda"whenhewasgivingthewholeofhisremainingpropertytohischildren
    ofthesecondmarriage.Article814simplymeansthatincaseofpreterition,alltestamentary
    provisionsarevalidinsofarastheydonotimpairthelegitime.Theeffectofthedecisionin
    thiscaseistodeclareanintestatesuccessionastotheentireestatewheneverthereisno

    expressmejoraandexpresslegacy.Thus,therewouldbetotalintestacy,inspiteofthe
    testamentaryprovisionstothecontrary,inthepreteritionunderthefollowingcircumstances:
    1.Wherethereisatacitmejora,underarticle828;or
    2.Whentherecanproperlybenomejora,expressorimplied,becauseachildordescendantis
    institutedasthesoleheirtothewholeestate;or
    3.Whentherecanproperlybeneitherexpressmejoranorexpresslegacybecausetwoormore
    childrenordescendantsareinstitutedtotakethewholeestateequallyorwithoutexpress
    designationofshares.
    Suchcouldnothavebeentheintentionofthelegislator,becausethewholeschemeofthe
    CivilCodeastosuccessionsistorespecttestamentaryprovisionssolongasthelegitimeis
    notdiminished.(Arts.763,764,767,777,782,792,798,813,814,815,817,820,828,1036,
    and1037,CivilCode.)
    Furthermore,itwouldappeartobeviolativeofthelawtothrowtheentirewilltothescrap
    heapanddeclareatotalintestatesuccession,whensuchwillcanandshouldbeenforcedinso
    farastheshortlegitimeofthechildrenofthefirstmarriageisnotlessened.True,tosomeit
    mightseemmoreequitabletodividetheestateequallyamongallthechildrenofboth
    marriages.Butsolongastheshortlegitimeisnotimpaired,thetestatorinthiscasewasfree
    todistributehispropertyamonghischildrenashesawfitandfair.(Thisiswhyevenincase
    ofpreterition(article814),mandasandmejorasarevalidtotheextentthattheyarenot
    inofficious.Ifthisminimumandobligatoryportion(shortlegitime)ofeachchildiskeptintact
    inthepartitionunderthewill,thelawdoesnotadmitofanyinterferencewiththetestator's
    wishes.Heisthesolejudgeastowhichchildrenshouldgetmorethantheothers.Toholdthat
    thereshallbeanequaldivisionofthewholeestateapplyingtherulesofintestacywhen
    thetestatorpositivelyandunmistakablystatedthatthereshallbeadifferentdistributionofthe
    remainingestate,iscontrarytolaw.Moreover,intestatesuccessionisbaseduponthepresume
    intentionofthedeceased.Saving,ofcourse,theshortlegitimeofthechildrenofthefirst
    marriage,weshouldnotresorttothatpresumedintentioninthefaceofaclearandexplicit
    declarationinhiswillthatthechildrenofthesecondmarriageshallbepreferred.
    Butgranting,arguendo,thatstrictlyspeakingthereareno"mandas"and"mejoras"forthe
    childrenofthesecondmarriage,yetbytheprincipleofconstructionbyanalogy,theprovision
    inarticle814thatmandasandmejorasshallbevalidshouldbeappliedbecausethetestator
    clearlyintendedtogiveatleasttwothirdsofhisestatetosuchchildren,inasmuchashewas
    givingallofittothem.Andhecoulddisposefreelyofsaidtwothirdsinfavorofsaid
    childrenofthesecondmarriage,thatis,onethirdfromtheportion.forfreedisposal,andone
    thirdfromtheportionassignedbylawtomejora.Inotherwords,grantingforthesakeof
    argumentthattherewasneitheramandanoramejorainthiscase,neverthelessthepresent
    situationoffersagap,notspecificallyforeseenbythelawmaker,whichshouldbefilledby
    applyingthewords,"valdranlasmandasymejoras"throughtheprincipleofanalogyinorder
    nottodefeatthemanifestintentionofthetestator.
    Themajorityresolutionlaystressonthesupposeddifferencebetweentheeffectofarticle814
    (preterition)andofarticle851(disinheritance).Whatevermaybethedistinctionbetweenthe
    twoarticlesintheory,thepracticalresultis,however,thesamebecausebotharticlescontaina
    savingclauseinregardtothemandasandmejoraswhichdonotimpairthelegitime.Article
    814says:"perovaldranlasmandasymejorasencuantonoseaninoficiosas,"andarticle851
    alsoprovides,"perovaldranloslegados,mejorasydemasdisposicionestestamentariasenlo

    quenoperjudiquenadichalegitima."Theidentityofideasisplain.True,article851
    (disinheritance)annulsthe"instituciondeheredero"insofarasitprejudicestheperson
    disinherited,wherearticle814simplysaysthatthepreterition"shallannultheinstitucionde
    heredero."However,thelackinarticle814ofthequalifyingwords"insofarastheomitted
    personisprejudiced"isfilledandsuppliedbythewords"perovaldranlasmandasymejoras
    encuantonoseaninoficiosas,"whichimmediatelyfollow.Infact,thewords"encuanto
    perjudiquealdesheredero"inarticle851aresuperfluousandunnecessarybecausethevery
    samethoughtisconveyedbythewords"perovaldranloslegados,mejorasydemas
    disposicionestestamentariasenloquenoperjudiquenadichalegitima."
    UptothispointIhavediscussedarticle814,CivilCode,purelyfromthestandpointofthat
    code,withoutreferencetotheCodeofCivilProcedure.Thislattercode,however,has
    abolishedthedistinctionbetween"heredero"and"legatario"undertheCivilCode,andhas
    changedthebasisofliabilityofpersons,whetherrelatedornottothedeceased,who
    receiveanypropertyfromtheestate.AsstatedbythisCourtinthecaseofSuiliong&Co.,v.
    ChioTaysan,12Phil.,13(year1908):
    Anexaminationmoreespeciallyofsections597,644,727,729,731,733,and749of
    theCodeofCivilProcedure,readtogetherwiththeremainingprovisionsforthe
    administrationoftheestatesofdeceasedpersons,clearlyindicatesthattheprovisions
    ofarticles660and661oftheCivilCodehavebeenabrogated.
    Theseprovisionsofthenewcodeclearlydemonstratethatthetermsherederoand
    legatario,asdefinedintheCivilCode(article660),arenotsynonymouswiththe
    words"heir"and"legatee,"asusedinthenewcode;theword"heir"inthecodebeing
    technicallyapplicableonlytoarelativetakingpropertyofanintestatebyvirtueofthe
    lawsofdescent,deviseeandlegateebeingreservedforallpersonswhetherrelatives
    ornot,takingrespectivelyrealorpersonalpropertybyvirtueofawill;whileheredero
    intheCivilCodeasapplicablenotonlytoonewhowouldbecalledan"heir",under
    theprovisionsofthenewcode,butalsotoone,whetherrelativeornot,whotook
    whatmightbecalled"aresiduaryestateunderawill(elquesucedeatitulo
    universal).
    Itappearsalsofromanexaminationofthoseprovisionsthatthelegislaturehas
    providednomachinerywherebyanabsoluterightonthepartoftheheirtosucceedby
    themerefactofdeathtoalltherightsandpropertyofthedeceasedmaybeenforced,
    withoutpreviouspaymentorprovisionforthepaymentofthedebts;andontheother
    handithasprovidedmachineryfortheenforcementofhedebtsandotherobligations
    ofthedeceased,notasdebtsorobligationsoftheheir,butasdebtsorobligationsof
    thedeceasedtothepaymentofwhichthepropertyofthedeceasedmaybesubjected
    whereveritbefound.Thussection597expresslyprovidesthat,inthosecaseswhere
    settlementofanintestateestatemaybemadewithoutlegalproceedings,eitherbya
    familycouncil,asknownundertheSpanishlaw,orbyanagreementinwriting
    executedbyalltheheirs,therealestateofthedeceasedremainchargedwithliability
    tocreditorsofthedeceasedfortwoyearsafterthesettlement,"notwithstandingany
    transfersthereofthatmayhavebeenmade";andwethinktheinferenceisclearthat
    thelegislatorinthissectionrecognizesandaffirmsthedoctrinethat,priortothedate
    ofsuchsettlement,therealestateatleastwaschargedinlikemannerwiththedebts
    ofthedeceased.Soitwillbefoundthat,wherelegalproceedingsarehadlookingto
    thesettlementoftestateorintestateestates,provisionismadefortherecoveryof
    claimsagainstthedeceased,notbyproceedingsdirectedagainsttheheirs,butby
    proceedingslookingdirectlytothesubjectionofthepropertyofthedeceasedtothe

    paymentofsuchclaims;thepropertybothrealandpersonalbeing,inexpressterms,
    madechargeablewiththepaymentofthesedebts,theexecutororadministrator
    havingtherighttothepossessionoftherealaswellasthepersonalproperty,tothe
    exclusionoftheheirs,solongasmaybenecessaryforthatpurpose(secs.727and
    729).
    Forpracticalpurposesitmaywellbesaidthatintheeyeofthelaw,wherethereisno
    remedytoenforceanallegedrightwhenitisinvaded,theexistenceoftherightmay
    safelybedenied;andwherethelawfurnishesaremedywherebyonemayenforcea
    claim,thatclaimisarightrecognizedandestablishedbythelaw.ThenewCodeof
    Procedurefurnishingnoremedywherebytheprovisionsofarticle661oftheCivil
    Codemaybeenforced,insofarastheyimposeupontheheredero(heir)thedutyof
    assumingasapersonalobligationallthedebtsofthedeceased,atleasttotheextent
    ofthevalueofthepropertyreceivedfromtheestate;orinsofarastheygivetothe
    herederothereciprocalrighttoreceivethepropertyofthedeceased,withoutsuch
    propertybeingspecificallysubjectedtothepaymentofthedebtsofthedeceasedby
    theveryfactofhisdeceased,theseprovisionsofarticle661mayproperlybeheldto
    havebeenabrogated;andthenewcodehavingprovidedaremedywherebythe
    propertyofthedeceasedmayalwaysbesubjectedtothepaymentofhisdebtsin
    whateverhandsitmaybefound,therightofacreditortoalienuponthepropertyof
    thedeceased,forthepaymentofthedebtsofthedeceased,createdbythemerefactof
    hisdeath,maybesaidtoberecognizedandcreatedbytheprovisionsofthenew
    code.(Paviavs.DelaRosa,8Phil.Rep.,70)
    Theeffectofsuchabolitionbetween"heredero"and"legatario"undertheSpanishlawisto
    renderobsoletethewords"anularalainstituciondeheredero"inarticle814oftheCivilCode,
    becauseatpresentalldeviseesandlegatees,whetherdesignatedas"herederos","legatarios,"
    "devisees,""legatees,"oranyothernamearetobetreatedalikeinthesensethatnoneofthem
    ispersonallyliablefortheobligationsofthetestator,butthepropertyassignedtoeachof
    themisburdenedwithalieninfavorofthecreditorsofthedeceased.Inotherwords,the
    "instituciondeheredero"undertheSpanishlaw,wherebythe"heredero"continuesthe
    personalityofthedeceasedandispersonallyliableforalltheobligationsofthelatterhas
    disappearedfromthejuridicalscene.Thatbeingso,thewords"anularalainstitucionde
    heredero"inarticle814havebecomeuseless,anomalousandanachronistic,andshouldbe
    absolutelydisregarded.Theresultintheinstantcaseisthatthechildrenofthefirstmarriage
    shouldbemerelyaddedascoparticipantsintheshortlegitimate,andthewillshallbeinall
    otherrespectsenforced.Therefore,theshortlegitimeshouldbedividedequallyamongthe
    childrenofbothmarriages,whilethechildrenofthesecondmarriageshall,inaddition,have
    themejoraandtheonethirdsetasidebylawforfreedisposal.
    Thereisanotherprovisionoflawwhichshouldnotbeoverlooked.Itisarticle1080ofthe
    CivilCode,whichprovides:
    Laparticionhechaconpretericiondealgunodelosherederosnoserescindira,ano
    serquesepruebequehubomalafeodoloporpartedelosotrosinteresados;pero
    estostendranlaobligaciondepagaralpreteridolapartequeproporcionalmentela
    corresponda.
    Itistruethattheabovearticleexpresslyreferstopartitionamongtheheirs,buttheintention
    ofthelegislatorisclear,thatinapreterition,thepartitionshouldnotberescindedbutthe
    omittedheirshouldgethislawfulshare.Byanalogy,thedistributionmadeinthewillbythe

    testatorinthepresentcaseshouldnotbedisturbed,thoughthechildrenofthefirstmarriage
    shouldgettheirportionfromtheshortlegitime.
    Finally,theprinciplewhichIhereinmaintainhasbeenestablishedbythiscourtintwo
    decisions:Escuinvs.Escuin,11Phil.,332(year1908),andEleazarvs.Eleazar,37Off.Gaz.,
    1782(year1939).IntheEscuincase,EmilioAntonioEscuindelosSantoswhohadno
    legitimatechildren,madeawillinstitutinghisnaturalfather,FranciscoEscuin,andhis
    (testator's)wife,MariaTeresaPoncedeLeonashisuniversalheirs,whoshoulddividethe
    estateinequalshares.Afterthetestator'sdeath,hisacknowledgednaturalson,EmilioEscuin
    yBatac,claimedtheentireestate.However,thisCourtheldthathe,theacknowledgednatural
    child,wasonlyentitledtohislegitimateofonethirdoftheestateunderarticle842,andthat
    thewillwas"validwithrespecttothetwothirdsofthepropertywhichthetestatorcould
    freelydisposeof."Iquotefromthedecisioninthatcase,whichwaspennedbyMr.Justice
    Torres:
    Withrespecttothequestionwhichformthebasisofthislitigationandrefertothe
    secondassignmentoferrors,itshouldbenotedthatthelatetestatordidnotleaveany
    legitimatedescendantsorascendants,butdidleavearecognizednaturalchild,the
    appellantminor,andawidow;thatthesaidminor,EmilioEscuinyBatac,isthe
    generalheirofhisnaturalfather,thesaidtestator,whorecognizedhimwhileliving
    (article807,CivilCode),andinthepresentcaseisentitledtoonethirdofhisestate,
    whichamountconstitutesthelegalportionofanaturalchild(article842ofthesaid
    code);andforthereasonthattheminorwasignoredbyhisnaturalfatherinhiswill,
    thedesignationofheirsmadethereinwas,asamatteroffactannulledbyforceof
    law,insofarasthelegalportionofthesaidminorwastherebyimpaired.Legacies
    andbettermentsshallbevalid,insofarastheyarenotillegal,forthereasonthata
    testatorcannotdeprivetheheirsoftheirlegalportions,exceptinthecasesexpressly
    indicatedbylaw.(Arts.763,813,814,CivilCode.)
    Ashasbeenseen,thetestatorwishedtodisposeofhispropertyinhiswill,
    designatingasheirshisnaturalfather,FranciscoEscuin,andhiswife,MariaTeresa
    PoncedeLeon,altogetherignoringhisrecognizednaturalchildwhoishisgeneral
    heir.Inviewthereof,andforthereasonthatheexceededhisrights,thesaid
    designationofheirsbecamevoidinsofarasitimpairedtherightofhisgeneralheir
    anddeprivedhimofhislegalportion;thewill,however,isvalidwithrespecttothe
    twothirdsofthepropertywhichthetestatorcouldfreelydisposeof.(Arts.763,764,
    806,813,842,CivilCode.)
    Notwithstandingthefactthatthedesignationofheirsisannulledandthatthelaw
    recognizesthetitleoftheminor,EscuinyBatac,toonethirdofthepropertyofhis
    naturalfather,ashislawfulandgeneralheir,itisnotpropertoassertthatthelate
    EmilioEscuindelosSantosdiedintestateinordertoestablishtheconclusionthat
    hisaidnaturalrecognizedchildisentitledtosucceedtotheentireestateunderthe
    provisionsofarticle939oftheCivilCode,inasmuchasinaccordancewiththelawa
    citizenmaydiepartlytestateandpartlyintestate(article764,CivilCode).Itisclear
    andunquestionablethatitwasthewishofthetestatortofavorhisnaturalfatherand
    hiswifewithcertainportionsofhispropertywhich,underthelaw,hehadarightto
    disposeofbywill,ashehasdone,providedthelegalportionofhisgeneralheirwas
    nottherebyimpaired,thetwoformerpersonsbeingconsideredaslegateesunderthe
    will.

    Theabovementionedwillisneithernull,void,norillegalinsofarasthetestator
    leavestwothirdsofhispropertytohisfatherandwife;testamentaryprovisions
    impairingthelegalportionsofageneralheirshallbereducedinsofarastheyare
    illegalorexcessive.(Art.817,CivilCode.)(Emphasisours.)
    Theabovedecisioniscontrollingauthorityforthepropositionthatpreteritionofanheir
    annulstheinstitutionofheirsonlyinsofarasthelegitimateoftheomittedheirisimpaired,
    andthat,therefore,thewillisvalidwiththatlimitationandnomore.Thedecisionand
    resolutionintheinstantcasewhichsetasidetheentirewillanddividetheestateequally
    amongallthechildrenonthebasicofintestacyiscontrarytothedoctrineofEscuinvs.
    Escuin.
    ItwillbenotedthatinsaidcaseofEscuinvs.Escuin,thisCourthadinmindtheintentionof
    thetestator,andupheldthewillinsofarasthenaturalchild'slegitimewasnotcurtailed,and
    thisCourtdidnotrequirethatthereshouldbeanyexpressmejoraorexpresslegacy,aswas
    doneinthedecisionandresolutionintheinstantcase.
    IntheEleazarcase,thetestator,FranciscoEleazar,omittedinhiswillhisfatherEusebio
    Eleazar,disinheritedhiswife,EulaliaNagar,andinstitutedMiguelaEleazarashisuniversal
    heir.ThefathercontendedthattheinstitutionofMiguelaEleazarasuniversalheirshouldbe
    annulledandthathe,thefather,shouldbeentitledtoalltheestateofthedeceased.Butthis
    courtrejectedthefather'stheory,saying:
    Thedeceased,FranciscoEleazar,omittedinhislastwillandtestamenthislegitimate
    father,theappellantEusebioEleazar,expresslydisinheritedhislawfulwife,Eulalia
    Nagar,andinstitutedtheappelleeherein,MiguelaEleazar,ashisuniversalheir.The
    lowercourtadmittedthewilltoprobateandadjudgedappellantandappelleeeach
    entitledtoonehalfoftheestate.
    Appellantmaintaininhisappealthattheinstitutionoftheappelleeasuniversalheir
    shouldbeannulledandthathebedeclaredentitledtoalltheestateofthedeceased.
    Thewill,insofarasitdeprivestheappellant,aslegitimatefatherofthedeceased,of
    hislegalportion,isnullandvoid,butisvalidwithrespecttotheotherhalfwhichthe
    testatorcouldfreelydisposeofandwhichshouldbeconsideredasalegacy.(Escuin
    vs.Escuin,11Phil.,332;Arts.814,817,and809,CivilCode.)(Emphasisours.)
    ItwillbenotedthatintheEleazarcase,thefreehalfwasconsideredbythiscourt"aslegacy"
    infavorofMiguelaEleazaralthoughithadnotbeensoexpresslydesignatedinthewill
    becausethewholeestatehadbeengiventoher.Thisispreciselymyviewinthepresentcase,
    butthemajoritynowstate,deviatingfromtherulingintheEleazarcase,thatasthewhole
    propertyisbequeathedbyuniversaltitletothechildrenofthesecondmarriage,"thisis
    inconsistentwiththeideaoflegacywhichessentiallyreferstoaspecificpropertybequeathed
    byaparticularorspecialtitle."
    Butthemajoritytriestodistinguishthepresentcasefromthetwocasesabovecited,bysaying
    thatthereisadifferencebetweenacasewherethewholeestateisgiventoamerefriend,and
    acasewherethewholepropertyislefttooneorsomeforcedheirs.Thisattempttolaydown
    adistinctionfailswhenitisconsidered:

    1.Thatthelawmakesnodifferencebetweenthetwokindsofpreterition.Inbothinstancesof
    preterition,therefore,ontheauthorityofEscuinvs.Escuin,andEleazarvs.Eleazar,thewill
    shouldbeavoidedonlyinpart.
    2.Itistruethatinthecaseofafriend,totalannulmentofthewillwouldentirelydeprivehim
    ofashareintheinheritance,andthatinthecaseofsomeforcedheirsbeingthesole
    beneficiariesinthewill,theywouldparticipateequallywiththeomittedforcedheirsand
    wouldnotbetotallyexcluded.Butinthiscase,itwastheevidentintentionofthetestatorto
    givepreferencetohischildrenofthesecondmarriage.Moreover,Icannotsubscribetothe
    majority'sreasoningwhenitbelievesthatthetestatorwouldbepresumedtogivetheentire
    freethirdasalegacytoafriendbutnottosomeofhischildren.Ifwearetoindulgeinany
    presumptionatall,itshouldbethatthefatherwouldbeatleastasdisposedtogivethewhole
    freethirdasalegacytosomeofhischildrenwhoarehisownfleshandbloodastoa
    friend.
    3.Grantingforthesakeofargumentthatthebasisofsuchpreferencewasthemistakenbelief
    thatthetestatorhadalreadygiventhechildrenofthefirstmarriagemorethanthesharegiven
    inthewilltothechildrenofthesecondmarriage,whatsolutionwouldbewarrantedbylaw?
    Certainly,notthescrappingoftheentirewill,becausearticle814positivelyordainsthat
    "mandas"and"mejoras"whicharenotinofficiousshallbevalid.Itistoofarfetchedto
    assumethathadnotthetestatormadeamistake,hewouldhavedividedhiswholeproperty
    equallyamongallhischildren.Whatsupernaturalpowersdoesanycourthavetodivinethe
    inwardsentimentsofthetestatortowardeachandeveryoneofhischildren?Indeed,would
    notasocalledequaldistributionproducerealandactualinequalityonaccountofthe
    differentconditionsofthevariouschildreninrespecttofortune,age,mentalcapacity,moral
    character,attitudetowardthefather,andsoforth?Thisistheveryreasonwhythelawallows
    thetestatoramplediscretiontodividehisestateamonghischildren,providedthelawonthe
    shortlegitimeisobserved.I,forone,amnotreadytoviolatethesanctuaryofthetestator's
    conscience,expecttosafeguardtheshortlegitime.Solongasthisportionisrespected,the
    testatormaydisposeofthemejoraandthefreethirdinfavorofanyofhischildren.
    Inviewoftheforegoing,Ibelievethemotionforreconsiderationshouldbegranted,andthe
    willshouldbedisregardedonlyinpart,sothatthechildrenofbothmarriagesshoulddivide
    theshortlegitimeequally,buttherestoftheestateshouldgo,inequalshares,tothechildren
    ofthesecondmarriage,inaccordancewiththeintentionofthetestatorexpressedinthewill.

    You might also like