G.R. No. 235701. February 15, 2023.
FLORA L. TUBERA-BALINTEC, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF CESAR L. TUBERA, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Flora L. Tubera-Balintec filed a petition for the probate of a holographic will executed by her deceased brother, Cesar L. Tubera, dated November 23, 2002. The will bequeathed Cesar’s properties and bank accounts equally to his siblings, including petitioner. The decedent died on August 29, 2004. Respondents, Florenda Ballesteros (claiming to be Cesar’s wife) and Mark Cesar Tubera (their minor child, represented by Florenda as guardian ad litem), opposed the probate. Respondents claimed the decedent was married to Florenda on December 31, 2003, and they had a son, Mark Cesar, born on January 10, 2004. Petitioner contested the marriage and filiation, alleging the supporting documents were fictitious. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the petition for probate. It declared the marriage between Cesar and Florenda void ab initio due to the absence of a valid marriage license, as the required five-year period of cohabitation under Article 34 of the Family Code was not met (Cesar’s first wife died in September 2001, and he married Florenda in December 2003). However, the RTC declared Mark Cesar as the sole heir of the decedent, finding him to be Cesar’s child based on the Certificate of Live Birth where Cesar was declared the father and informant. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision. The CA agreed the marriage was void but upheld Mark Cesar’s status as an illegitimate (non-marital) child and a compulsory heir. The CA ruled that Mark Cesar’s preterition (omission) in the holographic will resulted in its annulment under Article 854 of the Civil Code, leading to intestate succession.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA erred in dismissing the case.
2. Whether the CA erred in declaring Mark Cesar Tubera as the illegitimate (non-marital) child of the deceased Cesar L. Tubera.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the filiation of Mark Cesar was duly established under Article 172 of the Family Code by the record of birth appearing in the civil register (Certificate of Live Birth), which indicated the decedent as the father and informant. As an illegitimate (non-marital) child and the sole compulsory heir of the decedent, Mark Cesar excludes the decedent’s collateral relatives, including the petitioner, from succession. The Court noted that the issues of preterition and the nullity of the marriage were not raised in the petition; thus, the CA’s rulings on those matters stand. Consequently, the holographic will was rendered inoperative due to preterition, leading to intestacy.