LOURDES DOROTHEO v. CA

G.R. No. 108581, December 8, 1999

RATIONALE:  No intestate distribution of the estate can be done until and unless the will had failed to pass both its extrinsic and intrinsic validity.

FACTS: Private respondents were the legitimate children of Alejandro Dorotheo and Aniceta Reyes. The latter died in 1969 without her estate being settled. Alejandro died thereafter. Sometime in 1977, after Alejandros death, Petitioner, who claims to have taken care of Alejandro before he died, filed a special proceeding for the probate of the latters last will and testament. In 1981, the court issued an order admitting Alejandros will to probate. Private respondents did not appeal from said order. In 1983, they filed a Motion To Declare The Will Intrinsically Void. The trial court granted the motion and issued an order. Petitioner moved for reconsideration arguing that she is entitled to some compensation since she took care of Alejandro prior to his death although she admitted that they were not married to each other. Motion was denied so petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the same was dismissed for failure to file appellants brief within the extended period granted. This dismissal became final and executory. A writ of execution was issued by the lower court to implement the final and executory Order. Consequently, private respondents filed several motions including a motion to compel petitioner to surrender to them the Transfer Certificates of Titles (TCT) covering the properties of the late Alejandro. When petitioner refused to surrender the TCTs, private respondents filed a motion for cancellation of said titles and for issuance of new titles in their names. Petitioner opposed the motion.

An Order was issued by Judge Zain B. Angas setting aside the final and executory Order as well as the Order directing the issuance of the writ of execution, on the ground that the order was merely interlocutory, hence not final in character. The court added that the dispositive portion of the said Order even directs the distribution of the estate of the deceased spouses. Private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. Thus, private respondents filed a petition before the Court of Appeals, which nullified the two assailed Orders. Aggrieved, petitioner instituted a petition for review arguing that the case filed by private respondents before the Court of Appeals was a petition under Rule 65 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner likewise assails the Order of the Court of Appeals upholding the validity of the one of the orders which declared the intrinsic invalidity of Alejandros will that was earlier admitted to probate. 

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court correctly held that the rules on intestacy shall apply.

RULING: It can be clearly inferred from Article 960 of the Civil Code, on the law of successional rights that testacy is preferred to intestacy. But before there could be testate distribution, the will must pass the scrutinizing test and safeguards provided by law considering that the deceased testator is no longer available to prove the voluntariness of his actions, aside from the fact that the transfer of the estate is usually onerous in nature and that no one is presumed to give — Nemo praesumitur donare.

If the will is extrinsically void, the rules of intestacy apply regardless of the intrinsic validity thereof. If it is extrinsically valid, the next test is to determine its intrinsic validity — that is whether the provisions of the will are valid according to the laws of succession. In this case, the court had ruled that the will of Alejandro was extrinsically valid but the intrinsic provisions thereof were void. Thus, the rules of intestacy apply as correctly held by the trial court.