G.R. No. L-3932 February 29, 1952
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE LEODEGARIA VILLANUEVA. ELISA CUISON, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. NICOLAS VILLANUEVA, ET AL., oppositors-appellees. FLAVIANO LACSON, judicial administrator.

FACTS

On February 14, 1939, Manuel Cuison filed a petition for the probate of the will of Leodegaria Villanueva, who died on December 14, 1938. The instituted heirs in the will were Reynaldo Cuison (a nephew) and six minor Macasa children (grandnephews and nieces). The petition was opposed by Nicolas Villanueva and other relatives. The lower court initially dismissed the petition, later reinstated it, and then, on November 28, 1941, denied probate and declared the deceased intestate. After a motion for reconsideration, the order denying probate was itself reconsidered on December 6, 1941, but proceedings were interrupted by the outbreak of war. On January 10, 1949, the court definitively denied the petition for probate. On August 16, 1949, Elisa Cuison and others (siblings of Reynaldo Cuison) entered the case for the first time, claiming Reynaldo died intestate on February 12, 1939, leaving no descendants, and that they and Manuel Cuison were his only heirs. They filed a petition for relief under Rule 38 from the January 10, 1949 order, alleging they had no actual knowledge of the order until July 1949, that they were constructive parties to the in rem proceedings, and that their non-participation was excusable negligence. The trial court, per Judge Eduardo D. Enriquez, denied the petition for relief on February 18, 1950, not on its merits, but on the ground that under Article 925 of the Civil Code, the petitioners had no right of representation as they were not children of a brother or sister of the deceased, and thus had no interest or personality to intervene. Petitioners Elisa Cuison et al. appealed this order.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners-appellants (Elisa Cuison et al.), as heirs of the legatee Reynaldo Cuison, have a sufficient interest in the will or the property affected thereby to entitle them to intervene in the probate proceedings and file a petition for relief.

RULING

Yes. The order of the trial court is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the petition for relief. The trial court erred in holding that petitioners were invoking the right to represent their deceased brother Reynaldo under Article 925. They are not seeking to represent him in succeeding to the testatrix’s estate. Rather, they seek to inherit the legacy in their own right as heirs of Reynaldo, who had already acquired the right to the legacy upon the death of the testatrix while he was still alive. Under Articles 657 and 651 of the Civil Code, the rights to succession are transmitted from the moment of death, and an heir succeeds to the rights of the decedent. Upon Reynaldo’s death two months after the testatrix, he transmitted his acquired right to the legacy to his heirs, the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have a clear interest in the will and the property affected by it, giving them the right to intervene and file the petition for relief.