Could a Will That Mentions All
Compulsory Heirs Still Be Invalidated for Preterition if the Bequest Turns Out
to Be Based on Property Not Owned by the Testator?
NELFA DELFIN TRINIDAD, JON
WILFRED D. TRINIDAD AND TIMOTHY MARK D. TRINIDAD, Petitioners,
vs.
SALVADOR G. TRINIDAD, WENCESLAO ROY G. TRINIDAD, ANNA MARIA NATIVIDAD G.
TRINIDAD-KUMP, GREGORIO G. TRINIDAD AND PATRICIA MARIA G. TRINIDAD,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 254695, December 6, 2023
FACTS OF THE CASE
On May 5, 2016, Nelfa Delfin
Trinidad, the second wife of the deceased Wenceslao B. Trinidad, filed a
petition for the probate of his notarial will. Wenceslao executed the will on
August 24, 2014, and died on March 4, 2016. The will named as heirs: his second
wife Nelfa; his two sons with her, Jon and Timothy; and his children with his
first wife, namely Salvador, Roy, Anna, Gregorio, and Patricia.
The will disposed of several
properties and notably included the Pico De Loro Condominium Unit to be divided
equally among all the children and Nelfa. However, the children from
Wenceslao’s first marriage (respondents) opposed the probate, arguing that the
condo unit—being the only property bequeathed to them—was not actually owned by
the testator. It was registered under Monique T. Toda, niece of Wenceslao. They
claimed that if the condo was not his property, then they effectively received
nothing, amounting to preterition, or omission of compulsory heirs.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Pasay City dismissed the petition for probate, ruling that Wenceslao was not
the owner of the condo unit at the time of death. Thus, the respondents were
preterited. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s dismissal, stating
that although the respondents were named in the will, they received no
effective inheritance since the condo unit was not part of Wenceslao’s estate.
Petitioners argued that Monique
was merely holding the condo in trust for Wenceslao. However, the Court found
this unsubstantiated. No document or testimony clearly created an express
trust. Evidence showed Monique paid for and held title to the property, and the
bequest of the condo unit could not be given effect under Article 930 of the
Civil Code (which voids legacies of property not owned by the testator).
Petitioners also failed to prove
that respondents had received substantial lifetime gifts. Nelfa claimed that
Wenceslao gave Php 10 million to each child, but the evidence presented was
unverified and self-serving.
REITERATED ISSUE BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT:
Whether the CA erred in
affirming the dismissal of the probate of Wenceslao’s will on the ground of
preterition.
SUPREME COURT DECISION:
The Supreme Court partially
granted the petition. It upheld the finding of preterition, as
respondents were effectively omitted from inheriting anything due to the
invalidity of the bequest over a property Wenceslao did not own. However, the
Court ruled that the will itself should not have been dismissed outright.
The devises and legacies made in favor of petitioners remain valid
insofar as they do not impair the legitimes of the preterited heirs.
Hence, the case was remanded
to the RTC for determination of the value of the estate, the legitimes of
the heirs, and whether any reduction of legacies is required.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
"ACCORDINGLY, in view of the
foregoing premises, the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Court of
Appeals Decision promulgated on September 17, 2020, and the Resolution dated
November 27, 2020, in CA-G.R. CV No. 113463 are MODIFIED. The Petition for
Probate of the Will of Wenceslao B. Trinidad is REMANDED to the Regional Trial
Court for further proceedings."
Should a testator's failure to
acquire legal ownership of a property before death entirely nullify a
well-intentioned gift to his children, especially if all were named in the
will?
IMPORTANT DOCTRINES:
- Article 854, Civil Code – Preterition:
“The preterition or omission of
one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the direct line… shall annul the
institution of heir…”
Even named heirs are
preterited if they are given nothing from the estate.
- Article 930, Civil Code – Void Legacy of Property
Not Owned:
“The legacy or devise of a thing
belonging to another person shall be void…”
A testator cannot bequeath
property he does not own.
- Article 1444, Civil Code – Express Trust:
“No particular words are required
for the creation of an express trust...”
But trust must be clearly and
convincingly proven—not by mere allegations.
- Doctrine in Nuguid v. Nuguid:
Intrinsic validity of a will
may be resolved in probate when practical considerations demand it.
- Doctrine in Neri v. Akutin:
Preterition nullifies only the
institution of heirs, not specific legacies or devises if they are not
inofficious.
Classification: Civil
Law (Succession and Wills)
Looking for a reliable and affordable study companion for the 2025 Bar Exams? The Law Requisites PH offers expertly curated digital case digests designed specifically for bar examinees, law students, and legal professionals. With concise, organized content tailored to support your review and legal practice, you can now access these powerful tools for only ₱499. Start strengthening your preparation today by visiting https://beacons.ai/thelawrequisitesph. Your bar success begins with the right resources—get yours now!
🎓 PHILIPPINE LAW
PROFESSOR EXPLAINS: PRETERITION & PROBATE LAW CASE DIGEST 📚
This short content tackles the landmark Supreme Court ruling
in Nelfa Delfin Trinidad, Jon Wilfred D. Trinidad, and Timothy Mark D.
Trinidad vs. Salvador G. Trinidad, et al., G.R. No. 254695, December 6,
2023 — a Civil Law case on succession, preterition, and probate.
The purpose of this discussion is to assist law students
and bar reviewees in remembering the key doctrines discussed by the
Supreme Court in this case. We’ll break down the case's nature, core issue,
decision, and list 10 important doctrines you can use for your recitations or
review.
🧾 CASE SUMMARY:
This is a petition for review on certiorari involving
the probate of a will. The testator, Wenceslao Trinidad, willed a
condominium unit to his children from his first marriage. However, it was
discovered that he did not own the unit. This resulted in preterition
because the said heirs effectively received nothing, despite being named
in the will.
The RTC and CA dismissed the petition for probate,
finding that preterition existed. The Supreme Court modified the
rulings, holding that preterition occurred, but the will should not be
entirely dismissed. The case was remanded for determination of legitimes
and possible reduction of legacies.
❓ Can compulsory heirs truly be
considered "not preterited" even if named in the will, but they
receive nothing of value? Share your thoughts in the comments!
📌 10 IMPORTANT DOCTRINES
DISCUSSED (FOR REVIEW AND RECALL):
- Preterition
Defined (Art. 854, Civil Code)
Preterition is the total omission of a compulsory heir in the direct line from the inheritance—whether by name or by exclusion of any actual share. [SC Decision] - Naming
an Heir ≠ Receiving a Share
Even if a compulsory heir is named, if they receive no actual benefit, preterition occurs. [SC Decision, re: invalid bequest over condo unit] - Ownership
Requirement in Testamentary Disposition (Art. 930, Civil Code)
A testator cannot will property he doesn’t own. The legacy is void if it pertains to property belonging to another. [Art. 930; SC Decision] - No
Express Trust Without Clear Proof (Art. 1444, Civil Code)
Trusts must be clearly intended and proven with clear, convincing evidence; bare allegations or self-serving letters are insufficient. [SC Decision] - Intrinsic
Validity May Be Resolved at Probate (Nuguid Doctrine)
Probate courts can rule on intrinsic validity if practical considerations demand it—especially to avoid protracted litigation. [SC citing Nuguid v. Nuguid] - Devises
and Legacies Not Affected by Preterition (Art. 854, Civil Code)
Preterition only annuls the institution of heirs, but specific legacies/devices remain valid if they are not inofficious. [SC Decision] - Total
Intestacy If No Other Legacy Exists (Morales Doctrine)
If there are no legacies/devices and preterition is established, the entire will becomes void, and estate proceeds via intestacy. [SC citing Morales v. Olondriz] - Heirs’
Legitime Must Be Respected (Civil Code Principle)
Any will must preserve the legitime of compulsory heirs. Any excessive legacy may be reduced to satisfy the legitimes. [SC Decision] - Testator’s
Statements Must Be Supported by Evidence
Claimed gifts (e.g., ₱10M given during life) require concrete proof. Unsupported oral claims and unauthenticated lists do not suffice. [SC Decision] - Doctrine
of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet
No one can give what they do not own. This principle voided the bequest of the condo unit, as it belonged to another. [SC Decision]
🎓 This video is
intended for educational purposes only. It does not claim to be legally
infallible. This content is AI-generated using premium legal datasets and
Supreme Court decisions.
📌 Don’t forget to subscribe,
comment your insights, and save this video for your bar or law
school review!
🔖 Case: Trinidad
v. Trinidad, G.R. No. 254695, December 6, 2023
#CivilLaw #Succession #Preterition #BarReview #PHLaw #LegalDigest
#LawSchoolPhilippines
🎓 WELCOME TO YOUR
CIVIL LAW QUIZZER!
In this CONTEN, we’ll test your understanding of a
significant Civil Law case on succession, probate, and preterition,
decided by the Philippine Supreme Court. This quiz is based on the case:
📌 Nelfa Delfin
Trinidad, Jon Wilfred D. Trinidad, and Timothy Mark D. Trinidad vs. Salvador G.
Trinidad, et al.
📌
G.R. No. 254695, promulgated December 6, 2023
Nature of the Case: This is a Civil Law case
involving a petition for probate of a will. The core issue revolves around preterition,
where compulsory heirs—though named—were left with nothing due to a
testamentary disposition of a property the testator did not own.
Case Summary: The decedent willed several properties,
including a condo unit, to various heirs. However, it was proven that the condo
was not his at the time of death. The heirs from the first marriage, despite
being named, effectively received nothing, leading to a claim of preterition.
The RTC and CA dismissed the will, but the Supreme Court modified
the rulings: it affirmed the occurrence of preterition but ruled that the will
should not be entirely invalidated. The case was remanded for further
proceedings to determine legitimes and possible reduction of legacies.
📢 Answer key will be
provided at the end of the video. Get your notes ready, and let’s begin!
🧠 QUIZZER:
- What
is the legal effect if a compulsory heir in the direct line is named in
the will but is ultimately given no effective share of the estate?
- A.
The will is completely valid.
- B.
It results in preterition.
- C.
The heir is considered voluntarily disinherited.
- D.
The court ignores the omission.
- What
property was the subject of dispute that led to the claim of preterition
in the case?
- A.
The family home in Pasay
- B. A
commercial property in Makati
- C. A condominium unit in Pico de
Loro
- D.
An agricultural land in Batangas
- Why
did the lower courts dismiss the petition for probate of the will?
- A.
The will was not notarized
- B.
The heirs were not notified
- C.
The will omitted the legitimes of some heirs
- D.
The only property given to certain heirs was not owned by the testator
- What
was the Supreme Court’s final ruling on the validity of the will?
- A.
It upheld the dismissal in full
- B.
It validated the will entirely
- C.
It ruled that the will should proceed to intestacy
- D.
It modified the decision and ordered remand for further proceedings
- Which
of the following best explains why the court ruled there was no valid
trust over the disputed property?
- A.
The trust was oral
- B.
The property was sold to a third party
- C.
There was no clear and convincing evidence of intent to create a trust
- D.
The heirs refused to recognize the trust
- What
key evidence did petitioners fail to provide regarding the testator’s
alleged gift of ₱10 million to each child?
- A.
An affidavit from the testator
- B.
Official receipts and bank documents
- C.
The testimony of the testator’s secretary
- D.
The consent of all heirs
- Which
principle affirms that a person cannot give property through a will if
they do not legally own it?
- A.
Jus sanguinis
- B. Nemo dat quod non habet
- C.
Pacta sunt servanda
- D.
Res judicata
- What
was the Supreme Court's direction regarding the remaining devises and
legacies in the will?
- A.
To disregard them completely
- B.
To validate them if not inofficious
- C.
To transfer all properties to the named heirs
- D.
To divide them equally among all heirs
- What
procedural step did the Supreme Court order following its decision?
- A.
Execution of the will
- B.
Rewriting of the will
- C.
Remand to the lower court for evaluation of legitimes
- D.
Distribution of the estate
- Which
of the following statements best describes the concept of preterition?
- A. It
occurs when an heir is given less than their legitime.
- B. It
is the intentional disinheritance of a legal heir.
- C. It
involves completely omitting a compulsory heir in the direct line from any
share in the estate.
- D. It
refers to giving a greater share to one heir over others.
No comments:
Post a Comment