Austria v. Reyes
31 SCRA 754
FACTS:
Basilia Austria vda. de Cruz filed with the CFI of Rizal a petition for probate, ante mortem, of her last will and testament. The probate was opposed by the present petitioners, who are nephews and nieces of Basilia. The will was subsequently allowed with the bulk of her estate designated for respondents, all of whom were Basilia’s legally adopted children. The petitioners, claiming to be the nearest of kin of Basilia, assert that the respondents had not in fact been adopted by the decedent in accordance with law, thereby making them mere strangers to the decedent and without any right to succeed as heirs. Petitioners argue that this circumstance should have left the whole estate of Basilia open to intestacy with petitioners being the compulsory heirs.
It is alleged by petitioners that the language used imply that Basilia was deceived into believing that she was legally bound to bequeath one-half of her entire estate to the respondents as the latter’s legitime, with the inference that respondents would not have instituted the respondents as heirs had the fact of spurious adoption been known to her. The petitioners inferred that from the use of the terms, “sapilitang tagapagmana” (compulsory heirs) and “sapilitang mana” (legitime), the impelling reason or cause for the institution of the respondents was the testatrix’s belief that under the law she could not do otherwise. Thus Article 850 of the Civil Code applies whereby, “the statement of a false cause for the institution of an heir shall be considered as not written, unless it appears from the will that the testator would not have made such institution if he had known the falsity of such cause.”
ISSUE:
W/N the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion in barring the petitioners nephews and niece from registering their claim even to properties adjudicated by the decedent in her will.
HELD:
No. Before the institution of heirs may be annulled under article 850 of the Civil Code, the following requisites must concur: First, the cause for the institution of heirs must be stated in the will; second, the cause must be shown to be false; and third, it must appear from the face of the will that the testator would not have made such institution if he had known the falsity of the cause. The decedent’s will does not state in a specific or unequivocal manner the cause for such institution of heirs. Absent such we look at other considerations. The decedent’s disposition of the free portion of her estate, which largely favored the respondents, compared with the relatively small devise of land which the decedent left for her blood relatives, shows a perceptible inclination on her part to give the respondents more than what she thought the law enjoined her to give to them. Excluding the respondents from the inheritance, considering that petitioner nephews and nieces would succeed to the bulk of the testate by virtue of intestacy, would subvert the clear wishes of the decedent.
Testacy is favored and doubts are resolved on its side, especially where the will evinces an intention on the part of the testator to dispose of practically his whole estate, as was done in this case. Intestacy should be avoided and the wishes of the testator should be allowed to prevail. Granted that a probate court has found, by final judgment, that the decedent possessed testamentary capacity and her last will was executed free from falsification, fraud, trickery or undue influence, it follows that giving full expression to her will must be in order.
