Case Digest: Seangio vs. Reyes, G. R. No. 140371-72, November 27, 2006

Succession | Holographic Will, Disinheritance

Provisions:

Article 783. A will is an act whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree the disposition of this estate, to take effect after his death. 

Article 810. A person may execute a holographic will which must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed. 

Article 916. Disinheritance can be effected only through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be specified. 

Article 919. The following shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance of children and descendants, legitimate as well as illegitimate:

xx

(6) Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed, by the child or descendant;

xx

Ponente:

Azcuna, J.

Petitioners:  Dy Yieng Seangio , Barbara Seangio, and Virginia Seangio 

Respondents: RTC Judge Hon. Amor A. Reyes

                    Alfredo Seangio, Elisa Seangio-Santos, 

                    Other Sangio siblings:

                    Alberto Seangio, Victor Seangio, 

                    Alfonso Seangio, Shirley Seangio-Lim,

                    Betty Seangio-Obas and James Seangio

Facts:

Private respondents filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of Segundo Seangio.

The petition sought the appointment of Elisa D. Seangio-Santos as special administrator and guardian ad litem for petitioner Dy Yieng Seangio, widow of Segundo.

Petitioners opposed the petition, arguing that:

1. Dy Yieng was still healthy
2. Segundo had granted power of attorney to Virginia Seangio
3. Virginia was the most qualified to serve as the administrator being a certified public accountant
4. Segundo left a holographic will disinheriting Alfredo Seangio, which should replace the intestate proceedings if valid.

A petition for the probate of the holographic will was filed.

Private respondents moved to dismiss the probate proceedings, asserting that the document purported as Segundo's holographic will did not meet the definition of a will under Article 783 of the Civil Code.

RTC: Dismissed the probate proceedings due to preterition in the holographic will.

Issue:

WoN the document executed by Segundo can be considered as a holographic will. YES

Held:

The document, entitled Kasulatan ng Pag-Aalis ng Mana, unmistakably showed Segundo’s intention of excluding his eldest son, Alfredo, as an heir to his estate for the reasons that he cited therein. In effect, Alfredo was disinherited by Segundo.

For disinheritance to be valid, Article 916 of the Civil Code requires that the same must be effected through a will wherein the legal cause therefor shall be specified. With regard to the reasons for the disinheritance that were stated by Segundo in his document, the Court believes that the incidents, taken as a whole, can be considered a form of maltreatment of Segundo by his son, Alfredo, and that the matter presents a sufficient cause for the disinheritance of a child or descendant under Article 919 of the Civil Code:

Article 919. The following shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance of children and descendants, legitimate as well as illegitimate:

xxx

(6) Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed, by the child or descendant;

xxx

A holographic will, as provided under Article 810 of the Civil Code, must be entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself. It is subject to no other form, and may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed.

Segundo’s document, although it may initially come across as a mere disinheritance instrument, conforms to the formalities of a holographic will prescribed by law. It is written, dated and signed by the hand of Segundo himself. An intent to dispose mortis causa can be clearly deduced from the terms of the instrument, and while it does not make an affirmative disposition of the latter’s property, the disinheritance of Alfredo, nonetheless, is an act of disposition in itself. In other words, the disinheritance results in the disposition of the property of the testator Segundo in favor of those who would succeed in the absence of Alfredo.

Moreover, it is a fundamental principle that the intent or the will of the testator, expressed in the form and within the limits prescribed by law, must be recognized as the supreme law in succession. All rules of construction are designed to ascertain and give effect to that intention. It is only when the intention of the testator is contrary to law, morals, or public policy that it cannot be given effect.

Holographic wills, therefore, being usually prepared by one who is not learned in the law, as illustrated in the present case, should be construed more liberally than the ones drawn by an expert, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the execution of the instrument and the intention of the testator. In this regard, the Court is convinced that the document, even if captioned as Kasulatan ng Pag-Aalis ng Mana, was intended by Segundo to be his last testamentary act and was executed by him in accordance with law in the form of a holographic will. Unless the will is probated, the disinheritance cannot be given effect.

With regard to the issue on preterition, the Court believes that the compulsory heirs in the direct line were not preterited in the will. It was, in the Court’s opinion, Segundo’s last expression to bequeath his estate to all his compulsory heirs, with the sole exception of Alfredo. Also, Segundo did not institute an heir to the exclusion of his other compulsory heirs. The mere mention of the name of one of the petitioners, Virginia, in the document did not operate to institute her as the universal heir. Her name was included plainly as a witness to the altercation between Segundo and his son, Alfredo.

Considering that the questioned document is Segundo’s holographic will, and that the law favors testacy over intestacy, the probate of the will cannot be dispensed with. Article 838 of the Civil Code provides that no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. Thus, unless the will is probated, the right of a person to dispose of his property may be rendered nugatory.

In view of the foregoing, the trial court, therefore, should have allowed the holographic will to be probated. It is settled that testate proceedings for the settlement of the estate of the decedent take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same purpose.