This is a Succession Case. Let's talk about PRETERITION. This case is interesting. It's a battle between Illegitimate Children.You know other than Criminal Law.. I think Succession compared to the former runs a wider gamut of human drama. Dito yung may nagpapatayan sa mana, naglalasonan, nagbobolahan, falsification of public and private document nandito na. Lahat na siguro. Murder, estafa, adultery, concubinage, physical injury, parricide, infanticide, lahat ng baho ng isang pamilya dito lumalabas, you see the human nature here always comes into play. All because of a desire and intent to gain.
But contrary to what I've said in the previous paragraph, it's also in Succession Law where you'll see the beauty of character of a person and human love and provision and dispensation. And it is here where you'll hear stories of people and histories of families where you'll say.. a life diligently and well lived really is far more than a valuable heirloom.
Q: Can a last will and testament of a decedent's whole estate override the compulsory heir rule? Can it be probated? That which testator named as heir notwithstanding that such heir instituted is/are not one of those enumerated by law as compulsory heirs? Can it override the proviso?
Well it seems a dying man may designate anyone as heir as he wishes, we cannot go against that, that's human factor. And he is after all permitted by law to control the disposition of his own estate. Of course provided the requisites of the formalities of the will are all satisfied. In testamentary succession in Art. 779 all you need is the 1. designation of an heir, 2. made in a will, and 3. executed in the form prescribed by law. And so there must be a way to over ride the compulsory heir rule.
A: NO. The law will still come in. The provision in Art. 783 reads "..to control TO A CERTAIN DEGREE the disposition..." The permission given by the state for a dying man to control the disposition of his estate is therefore REGULATED. Well in the first place it was PERMITTED (if you read the opening sentence of that provision) so.. what do you expect?
FQ: And so you further ask.. "Why is that so?"
FA: It's because of what we call LEGITIME.
I'm not disproving that it happens but it seems absurd in Philippine customs to designate one who doesn't belong to the family's succession line so.. let's think of someone more relevantly valid to this argument. Let's say you love your illegitimate son/daughter more than you love your legitimate children. Which of course seldom happens in Philippine drama. It's always the other way around. The legitimate child get's kicked off from the estate. In legal drama however it's different: It's the illegitimate child whose always proving filiation with the deceased estranged parent, or is usually denied paternity. But for the sake of this argument, can a testator dispose the whole portion or let's say a bigger portion of his estate to his beloved illegitimate child and.. in a way of PRETERITION I guess, disregard the legitimate children who are his compulsory heirs?
(Well come to think of it, the illegitimate child as stated in the New Civil Code is now one of those enumerated as compulsory heirs, I think the rate is he get's half of what the legitimate bro gets. Like if the father's estate amounts to what? 50 million? The legit child get's half of it so.. 25M.. and the illegit child get's half rate of the legit child.. so.. he get's.. what 12.5M?.. Anyway)
A: NO. Why?: Again.. it's because of the LEGITIME.
What then is a Legitime? Legitime (I think in Art. 886) is that part of the testator’s property which he cannot dispose of because the law reserved it for certain type of heirs, and they are what you call compulsory heirs. The issue is, legit kids are what you call primary compulsory heirs, the legit parents are only secondary. The thing is an illegitimate child is a mere concurring compulsory heir. Concurring mean you just agreed. Agreed that you will be given and agreed to what you will receive.
Here's a succession case of PRETERITION. Preterition is the omission of the compulsory heirs in the direct line. Like let's say if you favor other people other than your compulsory heir in the direct line by disposing your estate in a will and deliberately omitting them in such a way that they receive nothing.. well that's Preterition alright. Question is, is Preterition applicable to Illegitimate children?
Here's the case:
ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN FILED FOR FILIATION
Around 1969, Bienvenido Garcia and Emeteria Garcia (GARCIAS) claiming to be illegitimate children of Dr. Meliton SOLANO, filed an action for recognition against him. Well, in his Answer, SOLANO denied paternity. Then a year after, during the pendency of the case, SOLANO died.
LEGITIMATE CHILD CLAIMING SOLE HEIRSHIP
SONIA Ana Solano (petitioner herein) was ordered substituted for the DECEDENT as the only surviving heir mentioned in his Last Will and Testament probated. So SONIA entered her formal appearance as a "substitute defendant" claiming she was the sole heir of her father, Dr. SOLANO, and asked the court that she be allowed to assume her duties as executrix of the probated Will with the least interference from the GARCIAS who were "mere pretenders to be illegitimate children of SOLANO". (see the human drama I've told you?.. it's unfolding)
ILLEGIT CHILDREN IMPUGNS LEGIT CHILD'S CLAIM
GARCIAS filed their REPLY impugning the recognition of SONIA as an acknowledged natural child with the prayer that she be declared instead, like them, as an adulterous child of the DECEDENT. (O ha? drama begets drama.. I told yah!)
ISSUES:
1) the question of recognition of the GARCIAS; 2) the correct status of SONIA, and 3) the hereditary share of each of them in view of the probated Will.
RTC DECISION GAVE WEIGHT TO ILLEGIT CHILDREN'S CLAIM
1) Trial Court declared the plaintiffs Bienvenido S. Garcia and Emeteria S. Garcia and the defendant Sonia Ana Tuagnon as the illegitimate children of the late Dr. Meliton Solano under the class of ADULTEROUS CHILDREN, with all the rights granted them by law.
So.. turns out birds of the same feather huh? What happens now to the will being probated? E hindi pala legitimate child yung Sonia eh. If there's no legitimate child, then the institution of Sonia as sole heir becomes null and void. So what we have here now is TOTAL INTESTACY. I dunno I think Intestate Proceedings comes in.
2) True enough RTC declared the institution of Sonia Ana Solano as sole and universal heir of the said deceased in the will null and void and
3) The three (3) children shall share equally the estate or one- third (1/3) each.
SONIA APPEAL TO CA. Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC ruling. SONIA FILED FOR REVIEW FOR CERTIORARI SC
RULING:
(What happened here?) Eto kwento jan eh..
1ST WIFE
MELITON SOLANO, a resident of Tabaco, Albay, married Pilar Riosa. The latter died.
2ND WIFE
On a world tour he met a French woman, Lilly Gorand, who became his second wife in 1928. The union was short-lived as she left him in 1929.
3RD PARTNER (GARCIAS' MOM)
In the early part of 1930, SOLANO started having amorous relations with Juana Garcia, out of which affair was born Bienvenido Garcia and Emeteria Garcia. Their birth certificates and baptismal certificates mention only the mother's name without the father's name. The facts establish, however, that SOLANO during his lifetime recognized the GARCIAS as his children by acts of support and provisions for their education.
4TH PARTNER (SONIA's MOM)
In 1935, SOLANO started living with Trinidad Tuagnon. Three children were born out of this relation but only petitioner SONIA Ana Tuagnon, 1941, is living. In her Birth Certificate, her status was listed as "illegitimate".
Babaero pala to si Doc..
DIVORCE FROM THE FRENCH GIRL
During the Japanese occupation, SOLANO obtained a divorce from Lilly Gorand on November 29, 1943 and on December 22, 1943, SOLANO and Trinidad Tuagnon executed an "Escritura de Reconocimiento de Unit Hija Natural" acknowledging SONIA as a "natural child" and giving her the right to use the name SONIA Ana Solano y Tuagnon. The document was registered with the Local Civil Registrar on the same date.
So indeed, Sonia has a better right..
On January 18, 1969, SOLANO executed his "Ultima Voluntad y Testamento" instituting ZONIA as his universal heir to all his personal and real properties in Camalig, Tabaco and Malinao, all in the province of Albay, except for five parcels of land in Bantayan, Tabaco, Albay, which were given to Trinidad Tuagnon in usufruct. The Will was duly probated on March 10, 1969 in Special Proceedings of the Court of First Instance of Albay.
Yun naman pala eh!
SONIA'S CONTENTIONS
1) The RTC and CA acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction in declaring substitute defendant Sonia Ana Solano, now petitioner, an illegitimate child of the late Dr. Meliton Solano.
2) The RTC and CA acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction in ordering the division of the estate of Dr. Meliton Solano between the petitioner and private respondents, when said estate is under the jurisdiction and control of the probate Court in Special Proceedings No. 842.
3) RTC and CA acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction in declaring nun and void the institution of heir in the last will and testament of Dr. Meliton Solano, which was duly probated in special proceedings No. 842 of the Court of First Instance of Albay, and in concluding that total intestacy resulted there from.
The thing was.. ANG PROBLEMA NGA E PRETERITION TO EH..
Court said the Trial Court and the Appelate Court had jurisdiction to conclude that, upon the facts, the GARCIAS and SONIA were in the same category as illegitimate children; that ZONIA's acknowledgment as a "natural child" in a notarial document executed by SOLANO and Trinidad Tuagnon on December 22, 1943 was erroneous because at the time of her birth in 1941, SOLANO was still married to Lilly Gorand, his divorce having been obtained only in 1943, and, therefore, did not have the legal capacity to contract marriage at the time of SONIA's conception, that being compulsory heirs, the GARCIAS were, in fact, pretended from SOLANO's Last' Will and Testament; and that as a result of said preterition, the institution of SONIA as sole heir by SOLANO is null and void pursuant to Article 854 of the Civil Code.
"The preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious."
However, contrary to the conclusions of the Courts below, holding that the entire Will is void and intestacy ensues, the pretention of the GARCIAS should annul the institution of SONIA as heir only insofar as the LEGITIME of the omitted heirs is impaired.
So the Will, therefore, is valid subject to that limitation.. well I guess it's really plain that the intention of the testator was to favor SONIA..
Court said under the law, he had a right to dispose of by Will, so that the disposition in her favor should be upheld as to the one-half (1/2) portion of the property that the testator could freely dispose of. Since the legitime of illegitimate children consists of one half (1/2) of the hereditary estate, the GARCIAS and SONIA each have a right to participation therein in the proportion of one-third (1/3) each. SONIA's hereditary share will, therefore, be 1/2 + (1/3 of 1/2) or 4/6 of the estate, while the GARCIAS will respectively be entitled to 1/3 of 1/2 or 1/6 of the value of the estate.
Eto ang hirap sa Succession eh.. yung computation.. you need to memorize the scales. This computation is incorrect.. well according to my teacher. It should have been 1/3 each. In other words the high court should have affirmed wholly the lower court decision.
So the lower court judgment was modified in so far as the hereditary share in the estate of the decedent was concerned. The rest of the judgment were affirmed.
Kaya mas malaki pa rin talaga share ni Sonia.. parang sinabe ng korte dito "Oo mga illigitimate kayo pare-pareho.. pero may preference yung testator eh.. ganun talaga eh.. basta lang mawala yung Preterition and may mareceive sila okay na" Pero pare-pareho silang illegitimate eh? korte na mismo nagsabe.. e di tama pala si ma'am.. 1/3 sila dapat each. Pantay-pantay.
But as had been established "the pretention of the GARCIAS should annul the institution of SONIA as heir only insofar as the LEGITIME of the omitted heirs is impaired."
So maybe the high court has reasons.
MISTRAL'S DAUGHTER
You know this case reminds me of that novel by Judith Krantz. "Mistral's Daughter"? Let me give you a synopsis:
When World War II sweeps the world, Maggy moves to New York to escape the holocaust and to pursue a modeling career. And eventually marries and puts up her own modelling company and begets Teddy, who followed her mother's footstep in the modelling world. Kate moves into a house in Connecticut and tries to convince Mistral and Avigdor his Jewish friend and curator to join her, but Mistral does not see any danger while Avigdor cannot leave his sick mother behind. Mistral seeks help for his friend and promises to help Avigdor cross the border, but she is caught by the Nazis before she can. A Nazi officer who sympathizes with Mistral's work allows him to continue to work – catches portraits from Avigdor in Mistral's residence, and warns him not to help Jews. When all of Avigdor's friends are shot by the Nazis, he tries to seeks refuge with Mistral, but Mistral refuses to help him in fear of being sent to a concentration camp as well.
After the War, Kate moves back to France and gives birth to their daughter, Nadine. Back in America, Teddy now a young adult, has been kicked off boarding school for accompanying male Harvard students, and expresses her desire of becoming an artist model as well like her mother. She goes to France in order to pose for Mistral. Mistral – who is unsatisfied with his private life: he does not love Kate, perceives his daughter Nadine as a mistake, and flirts with other women in front of Kate becomes infatuated with Teddy and courts her. When Teddy becomes pregnant, Mistral vows to leave Kate, but Kate refuses to grant him the divorce. Their daughter, Fauve, is born as a bastard, and Teddy dies in a boating accident shortly after. Maggy takes Fauve to live with her in America.
So Nadine was the legitimate child and Fauve was the illegitimate one. But Mistral loves Fauve more than his legitimate daughter. We cannot go against that. That's human factor.
So Kate is infuriated upon finding out and takes her revenge by telling Fauve about Mistral's collaborating actions during the War against the Jews. Knowing she has Jewish linage she immediately leaves her father and returns to America, where she decides to work at her grandmother's company. Kate, who has found out a year previous that she was terminally ill, dies of lung cancer, and Mistral's health deteriorates as well. Nadine, who has felt neglected by him for most of her life, is assigned to take care of him, but she ignores her father's cry for help when he has an attack, causing him to die. Nadine is happy to finally get her hands on his will, and is furious when she finds out that Fauve is entitled to his most important pieces of work.
It's ironic though, the one unloved has more appreciation for his works. So Mistral left a will which Fauve was not even interested in. His paintings. But due to obligations for her father she once loved Fauve travels to France and is introduced to Mistral's most impressive life work.
Here's what happened. In a manor house that housed all of Mistral's important works Fauve and Eric stood where the will was being read to her. And she was brought into a hall where numerous large pieces of oil paintings covered with white canvass sheets welcomed her. And one by one she was uncovering the paintings and while doing it, tears were flowing down her face. It was Mistral's great depiction of the holocaust. She couldn't speak. Eric voiced what she couldn't say "Your father despised the war and the mass slaughter of innocent Jews, contrary to what you believe". The lawyer hands her the copy of her father's will saying "This is worth a fortune considering how the wealthiest would pay for a Mistral. More so, the intricacy of such statement being uttered by your father in these depictions.. the wealth these brings you could pay for a life time". Tears continued to flow down her face and feelings of longing and guilt crept into her thinking if she only tried to find out for her self as she said "I never knew.. I never knew". The story ended with her standing at her father's grave. She rekindles her relationship with Eric and decides to follow her true passion of painting her father taught her.
Well I guess we couldn't really bank on first impressions especially once truth of ones silent life starts speaking.
