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

Nelfa Delfin Trinidad, the surviving spouse of Wenceslao B. Trinidad, filed a petition for the probate of her late husband’s notarial will dated August 24, 2014. The will named Nelfa and all seven of Wenceslao’s children from both marriages as compulsory heirs. The testamentary disposition specifically bequeathed a Pico de Loro condominium unit in equal shares to Nelfa and all the children. The children from the first marriage, the respondents, opposed the probate. They argued that the condominium unit, which was the only property bequeathed to them in the will, was not owned by Wenceslao at the time of his death, as it was registered in the name of a third party, Monique T. Toda.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition for probate on the ground of preterition. It found that petitioners failed to prove Wenceslao’s ownership of the condominium unit. Since that was the sole property devised to the respondents, their institution as heirs was ineffectual, resulting in their complete omission from the inheritance. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling, holding that the respondents, as compulsory heirs in the direct line, were preterited because the testamentary disposition in their favor was void, leaving them with nothing from the estate.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of the petition for probate and the disallowance of the will on the ground of preterition.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the lower courts’ rulings, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court clarified that there was no preterition in this case. Preterition under Article 854 of the Civil Code requires the total omission of a compulsory heir from the inheritance, meaning they are neither instituted as an heir nor receive any part of the estate. Here, the respondents were expressly named and instituted as heirs in the will; they were not omitted. The problem was the intrinsic validity of the specific devise to them.
The legal issue was the devise of a property not owned by the testator. Under Article 930, a legacy of a thing belonging to another is void if the testator erroneously believed it was his. However, such a void legacy does not result in preterition; it merely renders that particular disposition ineffectual. The institution of the heirs themselves remains valid. The correct remedy is not the annulment of the entire will but the reduction of the testamentary dispositions to satisfy the legitime of the compulsory heirs, following the rules on collation and partition. The probate court should have allowed the will and proceeded to determine the net estate for the proper settlement of the legitimes. Thus, the case was remanded to the trial court for the continuation of the probate proceedings.