Dolores Hacbang vs. Atty. Basilio Alo GR.No. 191031 October 5, 2015

DOCTRINE: 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.

CASE TITLE: Dolores Hacbang vs. Atty. Basilio Alo, GR.No. 191031, October 5, 2015, J. Brio

FACTS
On 3 April 1937, Bishop Sofronio Hacbang (Bishop Sofronio) died leaving several properties behind. Among these was a Lot located at España Street, San Juan, Rizal. Bishop Sofronio was survived by his parents, Basilio and Maria Hacbang, and his siblings. The respondent Basilio Alo (Basilio) is the son of petitioner Dolores Hacbang who is Bishop Sofronio’s sister.

Bishop Sofronio left a will denominated as Ultima Voluntad y Testamento. He left one-half of his properties to his parents and devised the other half — including the subject lot — to his sister Dolores. His last will and testament were probated and a transfer certificate of title to the subject land has been issued to respondent.

Petitioners filed a petition to cancel title issued to respondent on the ground that it was fraudulently secured. Basilio denied all allegations of irregularity and wrongdoing. He also moved to dismiss the petition because the petitioners were neither heirs nor devisees of Bishop Sofronio and had no legal interest in the subject lot.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the petition because the petitioners had no right to prosecute the case on the subject lot. The RTC noted that Bishop Sofronio’s will have already been admitted into probate in 1937; thus, the intrinsic validity of the will is no longer in question. Though the settlement proceedings were archived, Bishop Sofronio already designated his heirs: Bishop Sofronio’s parents were compulsory heirs entitled to half of his estate while the respondent’s mother, Dolores Hacbang Alo, was devised the remaining half (the free portion). Thus, the petitioners, who are neither compulsory nor testamentary heirs, are not real parties-in-interest.

The petitioners moved for reconsideration which the RTC denied. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that: (1) Bishop Sofronio’s will did not validly transfer the subject property to Dolores Hacbang Alo; (2) the probate of the will is not conclusive as to the validity of its intrinsic provisions; and (3) only a final decree of distribution of the estate vests title on the properties from the estate on the distributees.

The CA affirmed the RTC’s order of dismissal. The CA 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. It held that the presence of Bishop Sofronio’s parents during his death excluded his brothers and sisters from being compulsory heirs; the petitioners cannot represent those who are not entitled to succeed. Considering that they are neither compulsory nor testamentary heirs, petitioners have no legal interest in the subject property.

The petitioners moved for reconsideration which the CA denied on 21 January 2010. The denial paved the way for the petitioners to file the present petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether or not Bishop Sofronio died intestate.

HELD

No. 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.