Hacbang vs Alo, G.R. No. 191031|October 05, 2015
CASE DIGEST
Hacbang vs Alo
G.R. No. 191031|October 05, 2015
Topic: Transmission of Successional Right; Testate succession over Intestate
Facts:
A petition for the probate of Bishop Sofronio's will and the settlement of his estate was filed and was admitted thereafter to probate. Petitioner however filed a petition to cancel the registration of the subject lot of the case because it was found out that it was registered in the name of respondent.
The RTC dismissed the petition because the petitioners had no right to prosecute the case on the subject lot and noted that Bishop Sofronio's will had already been admitted into probate; thus, the intrinsic validity of the will is no longer in question. Though the settlement proceedings were archived, Bishop Sofronio already designated his heirs; thus, the petitioners, who are neither compulsory nor testamentary heirs, are not real parties in interest.
The CA in turn, affirmed the RTC's order of dismissal and held that the admission of Bishop Sofronio's will to probate precluded intestate succession unless the will was intrinsically invalid or failed to completely dispose of his estate. Contrary to the petitioners' contention, the settlement proceedings were not dismissed but archived; the will did not lose its validity merely because the proceedings were archived, undoubtedly, Bishop Sofronio did not die intestate. The CA denied the petitioners' claim to a right of inheritance by representation and cannot represent those who are hot entitled to succeed, thus, the denial paved the way for the petitioners to file the present petition for review on certiorari.
Issue:
1. WON the lower court erroneously applied the provision of the present civil code to the will and estate of Bishop Sofronio. - YES
2. WON Bishop Sofronio died intestate. - NO
Held:
1. At the outset, this Court observes that the parties and even the lower courts erroneously applied the provisions of the present Civil Code to the will and the estate of Bishop Sofronio. The law in force at the time of the decedent's death determines the applicable law over the settlement of his estate. Bishop Sofronio died in 1937 before the enactment of the Civil Code in 1949. Therefore, the correct applicable laws to the settlement of his estate are the 1889 Spanish Civil Code and the 1901 Code of Civil Procedure.
In any case, under both the Spanish Code and our Civil Code, successional rights are vested at the precise moment of the death of the decedent. In any case, under both the Spanish Code and our Civil Code, successional rights are vested at the precise moment of the death of the decedent. Section 657 of the Spanish code provides:
Art. 657. Los derechos a la sucesion de una persona se transmiten desde el momento de su muerte. (Rights to the estate of a person are transmitted from the time of his death.)
The inheritance vests immediately upon the decedent's death without a moment's interruption. This provision was later on translated and adopted as Article 777 of our Civil Code.
As a consequence of this principle, ownership over the inheritance passes to the heirs at the precise moment of death - not at the time the heirs are declared, nor at the time of the partition, nor at the distribution of the properties. There is no interruption between the end of the decedent's ownership and the start of the heir/legatee/devisee's ownership.
2. Undoubtedly, Bishop Sofronio did not die intestate. He left a will that was probated in 1937. He left half of his properties to his parents and the remaining half to his sister Dolores Hacbang Alo. The admission of his will to probate is conclusive with respect to its due execution and extrinsic validity.
Our jurisdiction has always respected a decedent's freedom to dispose of his estate, whether under the Spanish Civil Code or under the present Civil Code.
This provision states that a person without compulsory heirs may dispose of his estate, either in part or in its entirety, in favor of anyone capacitated to succeed him; if the testator has compulsory heirs, he can dispose of his property provided he does not impair their legitimes. This provision was later translated and adopted as Article 842 of our Civil Code.
Our jurisdiction accords great respect to the testator's freedom of disposition. Hence, testate succession has always been preferred over intestacy. As much as possible, a testator's will is treated and interpreted in a way that would render all of its provisions operative. Hence, there is no basis to apply the provisions on intestacy when testate succession evidently applies.