Nuguid v. Nuguid

Rosario Nuguid died single on December 30, 1962, without descendants. She was survived by her legitimate parents, Felix Nuguid and Paz Salonga Nuguid, and by six brothers and sisters. Her sister Remedios filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal a holographic will dated November 17, 1951, and asked that it be probated and that she be issued letters of administration with the will annexed. The will's only disposition gave "all of the property which I may have when I die" to Remedios. The parents opposed probate. They argued that, as compulsory heirs in the direct ascending line, they had been illegally preterited and that the institution of Remedios was therefore void. Before any hearing on probate, they moved to dismiss on the ground of absolute preterition. The CFI held the will "a complete nullity" that created intestacy and dismissed the petition, and it denied reconsideration. Remedios appealed to the Supreme Court. She contended that the case was one of ineffective disinheritance, not preterition, so that the institution should only be reduced to cover the legitimes.

1. 1Whether the Court may pass upon the intrinsic validity of the will before its extrinsic validity is settled in the probate proceeding.
2. 2Whether the omission of the testatrix's parents is preterition under Art. 854 that annuls the institution of heir and results in intestacy.
3. 3Whether the case is instead one of ineffective disinheritance under Art. 918.

Probate is ordinarily limited to extrinsic validity. Here, however, both parties had argued only intrinsic validity, and remanding the case would merely protract the litigation. For these practical reasons the Court resolved the intrinsic validity issue directly. Art. 854 provides that the preterition of compulsory heirs in the direct line "shall annul the institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious." Following Manresa, preterition requires that the omission concern a compulsory heir and that it be complete, so that the heir receives nothing under the will. The parents were forced heirs in the direct ascending line. The will omitted them entirely, and they were not expressly disinherited, so this was a clear case of preterition. To "annul" means to make void. The will contained only the institution of Remedios as universal heir and no specific legacies or devises, so the nullity was complete and Rosario died intestate. The saving clause for devises and legacies did not help Remedios. Devises and legacies must be expressly given as such, and an institution of heir, a disposition by universal title, cannot be treated as a legacy (Neri v. Akutin). The case was not ineffective disinheritance. Disinheritance is an express testamentary disposition depriving a compulsory heir of the legitime for a legal cause, while preterition is a tacit deprivation. Their effects also differ. Ineffective disinheritance under Art. 918 annuls the institution only "insofar as it may prejudice the person disinherited." Preterition annuls the institution in toto, subject only to valid devises and legacies. The order dismissing the probate petition was affirmed.