G.R. No. L-23079 February 27, 1970
RUBEN AUSTRIA, CONSUELO AUSTRIA-BENTA and LAURO AUSTRIA MOZO, petitioners, vs. HON. ANDRES REYES, Judge, Court of First Instance of Rizal, PERFECTO CRUZ, BENITA CRUZ-MENEZ, ISAGANI CRUZ, ALBERTO CRUZ and LUZ CRUZ-SALONGA, respondents.

FACTS

Basilia Austria Vda. de Cruz filed a petition for the ante mortem probate of her last will and testament. The will was allowed after due hearing, with opposition from her nephews and nieces, including petitioners Ruben Austria, Consuelo Austria-Benta, and Lauro Austria Mozo. The will instituted the respondents, Perfecto Cruz, Benita Cruz-Menez, Isagani Cruz, Alberto Cruz, and Luz Cruz-Salonga, as heirs, having been declared by Basilia as her legally adopted children. After Basilia’s death, the petitioners filed a petition in intervention for partition, alleging they were her nearest kin and that the respondents were not legally adopted, thus having no right to succeed as heirs. The lower court initially granted the intervention. The petitioners contested the authenticity of the adoption documents, obtaining conflicting reports from the NBI and the Philippine Constabulary, and depositions from former court personnel denying knowledge of the adoption proceedings. The petitioners moved to set a hearing on the genuineness of the adoption. Respondent Benita Cruz-Menez moved to confine the intervention to properties not disposed of in the will. The lower court issued orders delimiting the petitioners’ intervention to properties not disposed of in the will, which orders the petitioners sought to annul via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion or in violation of the parties’ rights in issuing orders restricting the petitioners’ intervention to only the properties of the estate not disposed of in the will, thereby precluding a challenge to the institution of heirs based on the alleged falsity of their adoption.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that the institution of heirs in the will cannot be annulled under Article 850 of the Civil Code. The requisites for annulment are: (1) the cause for institution must be stated in the will; (2) the cause must be false; and (3) it must appear from the will that the testator would not have made the institution if the falsity were known. The will did not state a specific cause for instituting the respondents; it merely referred to them as compulsory heirs and provided for their legitime. The Court could not infer the cause from the use of terms like “sapilitang tagapagmana.” Even assuming the cause was the testatrix’s belief in a valid adoption, the institution must stand because the will showed a clear intent to bequeath her estate to the respondents, and excluding them would result in intestacy contrary to her wishes. The Court emphasized that testacy is favored, doubts are resolved against intestacy, and the language of a will should be interpreted to give effect to every expression. Furthermore, the legality of the adoption can only be assailed in a separate direct action, not collaterally in the probate proceedings. The lower court acted within its inherent power to amend and control its processes by clarifying its initial order to limit the intervention.