G.R. No. 254695, December 6, 2023
NELFA DELFIN TRINIDAD, JON WILFRED D. TRINIDAD AND TIMOTHY MARK D. TRINIDAD, PETITIONERS, VS. SALVADOR G. TRINIDAD, WENCESLAO ROY G. TRINIDAD, ANNA MARIA NATIVIDAD G. TRINIDAD-KUMP, GREGORIO G. TRINIDAD AND PATRICIA MARIA G. TRINIDAD, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The case involves the probate of the Notarial Last Will and Testament of the late Wenceslao B. Trinidad. Petitioners, his second wife Nelfa and their two sons, filed a petition for probate. Respondents, Wenceslao’s five children from his first marriage, opposed, alleging preterition. The Will bequeathed specific properties, including a “Family Home” and others, to Nelfa and the petitioners. It also devised a “Pico de Loro Condominium Unit” to “ALL MY CHILDREN,” listing all seven children by name. However, during proceedings, it was established that this condominium unit was not owned by Wenceslao but was registered in the name of his niece.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the probate petition, finding that respondents were preterited because the specific property devised to them was not part of the testator’s estate, rendering the devise void and leaving them with no inheritance under the Will. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Rule 45 petition.

ISSUE

Whether the entire Will is void due to the preterition of the compulsory heirs, the respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court, through the ponencia with a Concurring Opinion by Justice Caguioa, partially granted the petition. The ruling held that preterition under Article 854 of the Civil Code, which annuls the entire will, occurs only when a compulsory heir is omitted from the inheritance without being expressly disinherited. Here, the respondents were not omitted from the Will; they were expressly named as devisees of a specific property. The invalidity of that particular devise—because the property did not belong to the testator—does not equate to their complete omission from the inheritance plan.
Therefore, the legal effect is not the annulment of the entire Will. Instead, the invalid devise of the condominium unit is simply void under Article 930 of the Civil Code, which states that testamentary dispositions of property not belonging to the testator are void. The other provisions of the Will, containing valid devises and legacies to Nelfa and the two sons, remain effective. However, these valid dispositions must not impair the legitimes of all compulsory heirs, including the respondents. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial court to determine the estate’s composition, compute the legitimes of all compulsory heirs, and effect the proper reduction of the devises if necessary to satisfy those legitimes.