G.R. No. L-72706 October 27, 1987
Constantino C. Acain, petitioner, vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, Virginia A. Fernandez and Rosa Diongson, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Constantino Acain filed a petition for the probate of the will of the late Nemesio Acain. The will, executed in 1960, instituted the children of Nemesio’s predeceased brother, Segundo Acain, as heirs. The testator’s widow, Rosa Diongson, and his legally adopted daughter, Virginia Fernandez, were not mentioned in the will. They opposed the probate, filing a motion to dismiss on grounds including that the petitioner lacked legal capacity to institute the proceedings and that they, as compulsory heirs, had been preterited.
The Regional Trial Court denied the motion to dismiss. The oppositors then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, which was referred to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC). The IAC granted the petition and ordered the dismissal of the probate proceedings. Constantino Acain’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for review.

ISSUE

The pivotal issue is whether the omission of the compulsory heirs from the will constitutes preterition that annuls the institution of heirs under Article 854 of the Civil Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the IAC’s decision. The legal logic centers on the application of Article 854, which states that the preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line annuls the institution of heir. Preterition is the complete omission of a compulsory heir from the inheritance, without being instituted as an heir or expressly disinherited.
Here, Virginia Fernandez, as a legally adopted child, is a compulsory heir in the direct line. Her complete omission from the will, without any express disinheritance, constitutes preterition. While the widow, Rosa Diongson, is also a compulsory heir, Article 854 strictly applies to compulsory heirs in the direct line (descendants or ascendants). Therefore, her omission does not by itself cause annulment. However, the preterition of the adopted daughter alone is sufficient to trigger the legal consequence under Article 854. This annuls the entire institution of heirs named in the will, resulting in total intestacy. Consequently, the probate court correctly lost jurisdiction over the petition, as there remained no will to probate given the annulled institution. The IAC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering the dismissal of the probate proceedings.