Succession - Balanay vs. Martinez

BALANAY vs. MARTINEZ GR No. L-39247

June 27, 1975

ART 780. Mixed succession is that effected partly by will and partly by operation of law. FACTS:   



 









Leodegaria Julian died and was survived by Felix Balanay Sr. and their 6 children. Felix Balanay Jr, one of the 6 children, filed a petition for the probate of their mother’s notarial will. Their Their mother’s will mother’s will declared that: a. She owned the “southern half ” of the conjugal lots. b. Her paraphernal lands and all the conjugal lands be divided and distributed in the manner set forth in the will.  Avelina Antonio Antoni o and Felix Fe lix Balanay Balana y Sr. opposed oppose d Balanay Jr’s petition, petition , but an affidavit was filed wher e Felix Balanay Bala nay Sr. withdrew his opposition and renounced his hereditary rights over the estate of his wife.  Avelina contended th at the affidavit of ren unciation was voi d.  A nnew ew lawyer, Atty. Montana, appeared in behalf of Felix Fe lix Balanay Jr, withdrawing the petition for probate p robate of will and requesting for an intestate proceeding instead. Such was granted by the probate court. Felix Balanay Jr. with a new lawyer filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that Atty. Montana had no authority to withdraw the petition. The probate court denied the motion and the will was declared void because of the disposition where the mother declared that she owned the “southern half” of the properties. properties. The disposition was declared illegal because she cannot declare ownership over the undivided conjugal properties, as her right as a co-owner was inchoate and pro-indiviso. The court then ordered for intestate proceedings to commence instead of testate.

ISSUE: 

WON mixed succession may occur in this case? YES

HELD: 

 

















For mixed succession to occur, the invalid disposition must be separable from the valid dispositions. The invalid disposition must not be a condition to the valid disposition. The probate court acted correctly in passing upon the intrinsic validity of the will before establishing its formal validity. Where practical considerations demand that the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even before it is probated, the court should meet the issues. But the probate court erred in declaring that the will was void and in converting the testate proceeding into an intestate proceeding. The rule is that the invalidity of one of several dispositions contained in a will does not result in the invalidity of the other disposition, unless it is presumed that the testator would not have made such other dispositions if the first invalid disposition had not been made. Hence, if there are certain dispositions in a will that are not valid, it will not render the whole will invalid. The will remains valid, and the valid dispositions should be followed. The rule is testacy is favored over intestacy. The policy of the State is to give effect to the wishes of the testator as much as possible. The illegal disposition of Leodegaria declaring that she owned the “southern half” of the properties can be rendered invalid, but the entire will is not nullified. Where some of the provisions of a will are valid and others invalid, the valid parts will be upheld if they can be separated from the invalid without defeating the intention of the testator or interfering with the general testamentary scheme, or doing injustice to the beneficiaries. The statement of the testatrix that she owned the "southern half of the conjugal lands is contrary to law because, although she was a co-owner thereof, her share was inchoate and pro-indiviso.  But That illegal declaration does not nullify the entire will. It may be disregarded. Hence, testacy should be favored over intestacy. The valid dispositions of Leodegaria in her will should be followed, while the invalid ones shall be effected by operation of law. (mixed succession)