o

Heirs of Policronio Ureta v. Heirs of Liberato Ureta

G.R. Nos. 165748, 165930 September 14, 2011
Mendoza, J.
Facts:
-

Background Facts:
o In his lifetime, Alfonso Ureta begot 14 children. Among
these 14 belong the ascendants of the parties in this case
Policronio and Liberato. Here, the descendants of Policronio
are up against the rest of Alfonsos children and their
descendants (including those of Liberato)
o When he was alive, Alfonso was well-off he owned several
fishpens, a fishpond and a sari-sari store, among others.
o On October 1969, four of Alfonsos children (Policronio,
Liberato, Prudencia, and Francisco), together with their
father met in Liberatos house. Francisco, who was then a
municipal judge suggested that to reduce the inheritance
taxes, their father should make it appear that he sold some
of his lands to his children. As such, Alfonso executed 4
deeds of sale covering parcels of land in favour of
Policronio, Liberato, Prudencia, and his common-law wife,
Valeriana dela Cruz.
o The dispute of this case is centered on the deed of sale in
favour of Policronio which covered six parcels of land.
o Since the sale was only made to avoid taxes and that no
monetary consideration was received, Alfonso continued to
enjoy the lands.
o When Alfonso died, except for a portion of parcel 5, the rest
of the parcels transferred to Policronio were never turned
over to him. Instead, these were turned over to the
administrators of Alfonsos estate Liberato, succeeded by
Prudencia, and then by her daughter Carmencita Perlas.

Subsequently, Alfonsos heirs executed a Deed of

Extrajudicial Partition, which included all the lands covered
by the 4 deeds of sale executed by Alfonso for tax
purposes.
o When the heirs of Policronio learned about the extrajudicial partition involving Alfonsos estate (Conrado, the
Policronio heirs representative avers that he did not
understand the partitions terms when he signed it) which
excludes them, they sought to amicably settle the matter
with the rest of the heirs of Alfonso.
o Given the futility of these talks, the heirs of Policronio filed
a complaint for declaration of ownership, recovery of
possession, annulment of documents, partition, and
damages.
o Note: a will was never mentioned in this case
RTC Judgment
o In favour of the Heirs of Alfonso. According to the court, it
was clearly established that the deed of sale was null and
void. Policronios heirs never took possession of the
involved lots and not even a single centavo was paid for
consideration of the sale. Even assuming there was, the
2000 pesos for the six parcels of land the heirs of Policronio
claimed that was paid to Alfonso was grossly inadequate.
o The deed of extrajudicial partition was declared valid by the
RTC. The Court considered Conrados (the representative of
the heirs of Policronio) claim that he did not understand the
full significance of his signature when he signed in behalf of
his co-heirs, as a gratuitous assertion. The RTC said that
given his signature in all the pages of the extrajudicial
partition and having appeared personally before the notary
public, he is presumed to have understood the contents.
Court of Appeals Judgment
o Partially Granted the CA, disagreeing with the RTC,
declared that the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition was void.
This decision of the CA was predicated on the incapacity of

one of the parties to give his consent to the contract. It held

that for Conrado to bind his co-heirs to the partition, it was
necessary that he acquired special powers of attorney from
them pursuant to Article 1878 of the Civil Code.
The CA said that the case should be remanded to determine
the proper portions to be awarded to the heirs

Issue (relevant to preterition): WON the defense of ratification and/or

preterition raised for the first time on appeal may be entertained
Held: No preterition in this case

vs.
Hon. Amor Reyes (Judge - RTC NCR Branch 21 Manila), Alfredo Seangio,
Alberto Seangio, Elisa Seangio-Santos, Victor Seangio, Alfonso Seangio,
Shirley Seangio-Lim, Betty Seangio and James Seangio, respondents
G.R. Nos. 140371-72 November 27, 2006
Azcuna, J.:
Facts:

Ratio:
-

Dy Yieng Seangio, Barbara Seangio and Virginia Seangio, petitioners

The heirs of Alfonso were of the position that the absence of the
Heirs of Policronio in the partition or the lack of authority of their
representative results, at the very least, in the preterition and not
the invalidity of the entire deed of partition. They argue that
remanding the case to determine proper inheritance is no longer
necessary since the issue is purely legal. Conrado then, according to
them, should just fully account for what he received and deliver to
his co-heirs their respective shares in the inheritance.
This cannot be given credence AT ALL
Their posited theory on preterition is no longer viable. Why?
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WILL IN THIS CASE
Preterition has been defined as the total omission of a compulsory
heir from the disinheritance. It consists in the silence of the testator
with regard to a compulsory heir, omitting him in the testatment,
either by not mentioning him at all, or by not giving him anything in
the hereditary property buy without expressly disinheriting him,
even if he is mentioned in the will in the latter case
Thus, PRETERITION IS A CONCEPT OF TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION.
In the absence of a will, there can be no preterition.

September 21, 1988

The Respondent Seangios filed a petition for the settlement of
the intestate estate of the late Segundo Seangio
They also prayed for the appointment of Elisa SeangioSantos as special administrator and guardian ad litem of
Dy Yieng.
Petitioner Seangios opposed the petition. They contend that:
Dy Yieng is still very healthy and in full command of her
faculties
The deceased Segundo executed a GPA in favor of Virginia
giving her the power to manage and exercise control over
his business in the Philippines
Virginia is the most competent to serve as administrator
of the estate because she is a CPA
Segundo left a holographic will disinheriting one of the
respondent Seangios
Given the holographic will, the intestate proceedings are
to be automatically suspended and replaced by the
proceedings for the probate of the will
April 7, 1999
Petitioner Seangios file a petition for the probate of the
holographic will
They said that probate proceedings should take
precedence over the intestate proceedings (the one by
respondents above) because testate proceedings take
precedence and enjoy priority over intestate proceedings
July 1, 1999

Respondent Seangios moved for the dismissal of the probate

proceedings
On the ground that the document purported to be the
holographic will does not contain and disposition of the
estate of the deceased --- thus does not meet the
definition of a will under Art. 783 of the CC
It only shows disinheritance, nothing else
No compulsory heir was named nor instituted as heir,
devisee or legatee
HENCE, there is preterition which would lead to
intestacy
Petitioner filed their opposition
Generally, the authority of the probate court is limited only to a
determination of the extrinsic validity of the will
The ground raised by the respondent Seangios question the
intrinsic and not the extrinsic validity of the will
Disinheritance constitutes a disposition of the estate of a
decedent
The rule on preterition does not apply because Segundo's will
does not constitute a universal heir or heirs to the exclusion of
one or more compulsory heirs
August 10, 1999
RTC dismissed the petition for probate proceedings
A perusal of the "will" clearly shows that there is preterition
The only heirs mentioned are Alfredo and Virginia
The other heirs being omitted, Art. 854 applies
However, insofar as the widow Dy Yieng is concerned, 854
does not apply because she is not a compulsory heir in
the direct line
The lower court cited the case of Acain v. IAC which stated that
tolerating a will when on its face, is intrinsically void, is an
exercise of futility.
Thus, this petition

Issues:
o WON Respondent Judge erred in ruling on the intrinsic validity of the
will despite the settled rule that the authority of probate courts is
limited only to a determination of its extrinsic validity (i.e. Due
execution, testator's testamentary capacity, compliance with the
requisites/solemnities prescribed by law)YES

WON Judge erred in saying that preterition exists and that the will is
void
YES
WON Judge erred in not suspending the proceedings in the intestate
case despite the settled rule that testate proceedings take precedence
over intestate proceedings
YES
WON there was a valid disinheritance
YES

Held/Ratio:
o Can the document executed by Segundo be considered a holographic
will?
Under art. 810 of the CC, a holographic will must be
Entirely written
Dated and signed by the hand of the testator himself
Segundo's document, though may it come as a mere
disinheritance instrument, conforms to the formalities
precribed by law - written, dated and signed by Segundo
himself
While it does not make an affirmative disposition of Segundo's
property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless is an act
of disposition itself
The disinheritance of Alfredo results in the disposition in
favor of those who would succeed in the absence of
Alfredo
A WILL DOES NOT HAVE TO MAKE AN EXPLICIT DISPOSITION
OF PROPERTY TO BE VALID
The intent or will of the testator, so long as it is expressed in the
form and within the limits prescribed by law, must be
recognized as the supreme law in succession
Holographic wills, being usually done by those not learned in
the law, should be construed more liberally than the ones
drawn by experts
o With regard to the issue on preterition
The Court believes that the compulsory heirs in the direct line
were not preterited
Segundo did not institute an heir to the exclusion of his
compulsory heirs

The mere mention of the name of one of the petitioners,

Virginia, did not operate to institute her as a universal
heir - included plainly as a witness
Considering that the document is Segundo's will and that the law
favors testacy over intestacy, the probate of the will cannot be
dispensed with - thus, the testate proceedings for the settlement of
the estate takes precedence over intestate proceedings for the same
purpose.

On the issue of preterition

The court believes that the compulsory heirs were not
pereterited in the will
In this case, the court believes that what is involved is
Segundos last expression to bequeath his estate to all
his compulsory heirs, with the exception of Alfredo
Segundo did not institute an heir to the exclusion of
his other compulsory heirs the mere mention of the
name of one of the petitioners, Virginia, in the
document did not operate to institute her as the
universal heir (she was merely designated as a witness
to the altercation between Segundo and Alfredo)