G.R. No. L-24365; June 30, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF EDWARD E. CHRISTENSEN, deceased. ADOLFO C. AZNAR, executor and appellee, vs. MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN DUNCAN, oppositor and appellant. MARIA HELEN CHRISTENSEN, oppositor and appellee.

FACTS

Edward E. Christensen, a citizen of California domiciled in the Philippines, died leaving a will executed on March 5, 1951. The will was admitted to probate. The testator declared in his will that he had only one child, Maria Lucy Christensen Duncan (Lucy Duncan), whom he expressly recognized as his daughter. He also declared that Maria Helen Christensen Garcia (Helen Garcia) was “not in any way related to me.” He instituted Lucy Duncan as his universal heir, subject to certain conditions and substitutions, and left Helen Garcia a legacy of P3,600.00 payable in monthly installments. After the testator’s death, Helen Garcia was judicially declared his natural child. In a prior proceeding, the Supreme Court ruled that the validity of the will’s provisions should be governed by Philippine law. The trial court subsequently approved a project of partition dividing the estate, after deducting legacies, equally between Lucy Duncan and Helen Garcia, ruling that Helen Garcia’s preterition annulled the institution of Lucy Duncan as heir, resulting in intestate succession. Lucy Duncan appealed, contesting this equal division.

ISSUE

Whether the estate, after deducting legacies, should be divided equally between Lucy Duncan and Helen Garcia (as if the testator died intestate due to preterition under Article 854 of the Civil Code), or whether Lucy Duncan’s inheritance as instituted heir should merely be reduced to the extent necessary to satisfy Helen Garcia’s legitime (under Article 906 of the Civil Code).

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that this is not a case of preterition under Article 854. Preterition requires the complete omission of a compulsory heir in the direct line from the will, meaning the heir receives nothing by any title. Here, Helen Garcia, though expressly disclaimed as a relative, was named in the will and given a legacy of P3,600.00. Therefore, she was not completely omitted. The case falls under Article 906, which applies when a compulsory heir receives by any title less than his or her legitime. Consequently, Helen Garcia is entitled only to demand completion of her legitime. The institution of Lucy Duncan as heir is not annulled; it subsists but must be reduced insofar as it impairs Helen Garcia’s legitime. The Court remanded the case to the lower court to determine the value of the net estate (after deducting all legacies, including the one to Helen Garcia), compute Helen Garcia’s legitime (one-half of the estate as a natural child, pursuant to Article 895(2) in relation to Article 908), and order Lucy Duncan, as the instituted heir, to bear the burden of satisfying the deficiency. The legacies, including the one to Helen Garcia, remain valid. Costs were assessed against the appellees.