0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
36 vizualizări1 pagină
1) The document discusses two cases related to wills and inheritance. In the first case, Caniza v. CA, the Court ruled that a holographic will not yet probated does not vest title to property to those occupying the land.
2) In the second case, Nuguid v. Nuguid, the deceased's holographic will instituted her sister as sole heir but did not mention her parents. The Court ruled this constituted preterition of the compulsory heirs (parents) and was invalid, resulting in intestate succession.
3) The Court found that where a will institutes a sole heir and preterits compulsory heirs without explicitly disinheriting them, it
1) The document discusses two cases related to wills and inheritance. In the first case, Caniza v. CA, the Court ruled that a holographic will not yet probated does not vest title to property to those occupying the land.
2) In the second case, Nuguid v. Nuguid, the deceased's holographic will instituted her sister as sole heir but did not mention her parents. The Court ruled this constituted preterition of the compulsory heirs (parents) and was invalid, resulting in intestate succession.
3) The Court found that where a will institutes a sole heir and preterits compulsory heirs without explicitly disinheriting them, it
1) The document discusses two cases related to wills and inheritance. In the first case, Caniza v. CA, the Court ruled that a holographic will not yet probated does not vest title to property to those occupying the land.
2) In the second case, Nuguid v. Nuguid, the deceased's holographic will instituted her sister as sole heir but did not mention her parents. The Court ruled this constituted preterition of the compulsory heirs (parents) and was invalid, resulting in intestate succession.
3) The Court found that where a will institutes a sole heir and preterits compulsory heirs without explicitly disinheriting them, it
101.Caniza v. CA, GR 110427, Feb. 24, 1997, opposed to the probate of the will on the ground 268 SCRA 640 that by the institution of Remedios as universal heir Facts: Carmen Cañiza was declared of the deceased, oppositors – who are compulsory incompetent because of her advanced age, heirs in the direct ascending line – were illegally so her niece, Amparo Evangelista, was preterited and that in consequence, the institution appointed her legal guardian. Pursuant to is void. Article 854 provides that preterition of one, some or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, her authority, Amparo commenced an whether living at the time of the execution of the ejectment suit against Spouses Estrada who were will or born after the death of the testator, shall occupying a house belonging to Carmen. The annul the institution of heir. Petitioners contention Spouses argued that they have been occupying is that the present is a case of ineffective the house in consideration of their faithful disinheritance rather than one of preterition service to Carmen, and that, in fact, Carmen had drawing the conclusion that Article 854 does not already executed a will bequeathing to them the apply in the case at bar. disputed property. When the case reached the CA, it ruled in favor of the Spouses, holding that Issue: WON the institution of one of the sister of the though not yet probated, the will was deceased as the sole, universal heir preterited the indicative of intent and desire on Carmen’s compulsory heirs. part that the Spouses were to remain and Held: Yes. Where the deceased left no descendants, continue in their occupancy and possession, so legitimate or illegitimate, but she left forced heirs in much so that Carmen’s s u p e r v e n in g the direct ascending line – her parents, and her incompetency cannot be said to have holographic will does not explicitly disinherit them vested in Amparo, her guardian, the but simply omits their names altogether, the case is right/authority to drive them out. one of preterition of the parents, not a case of ineffective disinheritance. Issue: Whether or not the holographic will, Preterition “consists in the omission in the testator’s though not yet probated, vested title to the will of the forced heirs or anyone of them, either Spouses Estrada. because they are not mentioned therein, or, through mentioned, they are neither instituted as Ruling: No. A will is essentially ambulatory; at any heirs nor are expressly disinherited”. Disinheritance, time prior to the testator's death, it may be changed in turn, “is a testamentary disposition depriving any or revoked; and until admitted to probate, it compulsory heir of his share in the legitime for a cause authorized by law”. Where the one sentence has no effect whatever and no right can be will institute the petitioner as the sole, universal heir claimed thereunder, the law being quite explicit. and preterits the parents of the testatrix, and it No will shall pass either real or personal contains no specific legacies or bequests, such property unless it is proved and allowed in universal institution of petitioner, by itself, is void. accordance with the Rules of Court. An owner's And intestate succession ensues. intention to confer title in the future to persons possessing property by his tolerance, is not In a proceeding for the probate of a will, the courts inconsistent with the former's taking back area of inquiry is limited to an examination of, and possession in the meantime for any reason deemed resolution on, the extrinsic validity of the will, the sufficient. In this case, that there was sufficient due execution thereof, the testator’s testamentary cause for the owner's resumption of capacity and the compliance with the requisites or possession is apparent: she needed to generate solemnities prescribed by law. The intrinsic validity income from the house on account of the of the will normally come only after the court has declared that the will has been duly authenticated. physical infirmities afflicting her, arising from her However, where practical considerations demand extreme age. that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is probated, the Court should meet 102. Nuguid v. Nuguid, GR L-23445, June that issue. 23, 1966, 17 SCRA 449
Facts: Rosario died without descendants, legitimate
or illegitimate. Surviving her were her legitimate parents – Felix and Paz, and 6 brothers and sisters. Remedios, one of the sister filed in court a holographic will allegedly executed by Rosario instituting the former as the sole, universal heir of all her properties. She prayed that said will be admitted to probate and that letter of