G.R. No. L-19996; April 30, 1965
WENCESLA CACHO, petitioner-appellee, vs. JOHN G. UDAN and RUSTICO G. UDAN, oppositors-appellants.

FACTS

On December 13, 1959, Silvina G. Udan, single and a resident of San Marcelino, Zambales, died leaving a purported will naming her son, Francisco G. Udan, and Wencesla Cacho as her sole heirs, share and share alike. Wencesla Cacho filed a petition to probate the will on January 14, 1960. Rustico G. Udan, a legitimate brother of the testatrix, filed an opposition on February 15, 1960. Francisco G. Udan, through counsel, also filed an opposition on June 9, 1960. However, on September 15, 1960, Rustico Udan verbally moved to withdraw his opposition due to Francisco Udan’s appearance, and the court allowed the withdrawal. After one witness (the notary public who notarized the will) testified, Francisco Udan died in June 1961. Following Francisco’s death, John G. Udan and Rustico G. Udan, both legitimate brothers of Silvina, filed their respective oppositions on grounds that the will was not properly attested and executed, the testatrix was incapacitated, and the will was procured by fraud or undue influence. The proponent, Wencesla Cacho, filed a motion to dismiss these oppositions. On February 20, 1962, the Court of First Instance of Zambales issued an order disallowing the oppositions of John and Rustico Udan for lack of interest in the estate and directed the Fiscal to study the advisability of filing escheat proceedings. The oppositors’ motions for reconsideration were denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the oppositor brothers, John and Rustico Udan, have legal standing or interest to oppose the probate of the will of their sister, Silvina Udan.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court, holding that the oppositor brothers lack standing to oppose the probate. The Court ruled that at the time of Silvina’s death, her illegitimate son, Francisco Udan, was her sole intestate heir to the exclusion of her legitimate brothers, pursuant to Articles 988 and 1003 of the Civil Code. Since Silvina was single, Francisco was necessarily her illegitimate son (presumptively natural under Article 277). Thus, whether the will is probated or not, the oppositors would not inherit: if probated, they are excluded by the will’s terms; if not probated, they are excluded by Francisco as the sole intestate heir. The death of Francisco after his mother’s demise does not improve the oppositors’ position because the rights he acquired transmitted to his own heirs, not to his mother’s legitimate brothers, as Article 992 of the Civil Code prohibits succession between illegitimate children and the legitimate relatives of their parents. The Court also noted that Francisco’s opposition to the probate did not constitute a repudiation of the inheritance, as repudiation requires a public or authentic instrument or a petition to the court, and none was presented. The inquiry into the hereditary rights of the oppositors was not premature, as it was necessary to determine if their intervention would simplify proceedings. The probate hearing must still proceed to ascertain the rights of proponent Cacho as a testamentary heir. Costs were imposed on the appellants.