G.R. No. 7890; September 29, 1914
FILOMENA PECSON, as administratix of the last will and testament of Florencio Pecson, et al., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ROSARIO MEDIAVILLO, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
Florencio Pecson died, leaving a last will and testament. The will was probated by the Court of First Instance of Albay over an opposition. The will named several of his children as heirs but made no provision for his daughter Teresa Pecson (predeceased) and his son Rufino Pecson. In Clause 3, Florencio expressly disinherited his granddaughter, Rosario Mediavillo (daughter of Teresa), for being “grossly disrespectful” and for having “raised her hand against him.” Rosario Mediavillo, through counsel, filed a motion to annul the disinheriting clause, alleging the act was unfounded and that if it occurred, she was not responsible due to her mental condition. The lower court found that Rosario was about 14 years old at the time of the alleged act and became insane shortly thereafter. It held she was not responsible for her acts and annulled the disinheritance clause. The court also ruled that Rosario and her father, Basiliso Mediavillo (as heir of his predeceased son Joaquin, Rosario’s brother), were entitled to inherit Teresa’s share. The administratix appealed.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the lower court erred in annulling the disinheritance of Rosario Mediavillo for lack of cause.
2. Whether the lower court erred in declaring Basiliso Mediavillo (the grandfather) as an heir by representation of his predeceased son Joaquin to a portion of the estate.

RULING:
1. On the first issue, the Supreme Court AFFIRMED the lower court. The Court held that under the Civil Code (Articles 848, 756, 853), disinheritance can only be made for causes expressly fixed by law, and the courts have the authority to inquire into the justice or cause of a disinheritance. If the disinheritance is without valid cause, the court may declare it null and void. After examining the evidence, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court’s finding that Rosario Mediavillo, due to her tender age and the subsequent loss of her mental faculties around the time of the incident, was likely not responsible for the alleged disrespect. Therefore, the disinheritance was without just cause and properly annulled.

2. On the second issue, the Supreme Court REVERSED the lower court. The Court held that the lower court erred in awarding to Basiliso Mediavillo (the father) the share of the inheritance that would have pertained to his predeceased son, Joaquin Mediavillo. Applying Article 925 of the Civil Code, the right of representation takes place in the direct descending line but never in the ascending line. Since there is a surviving descendant in the direct line (Rosario Mediavillo, Joaquin’s sister and Teresa’s daughter), the inheritance cannot ascend to the parent (Basiliso). The share of the predeceased heir (Joaquin) should therefore be distributed according to the rules of legal succession among the proper heirs, not awarded to his father.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The part of the lower court’s judgment annulling the disinheritance clause is affirmed. The part decreeing that Basiliso Mediavillo is an heir to Joaquin’s share is revoked. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings to determine the proper disposition of the share pertaining to the predeceased Joaquin Mediavillo. No costs were awarded.