Austria vs. Reyes G.R. No. L-23079, February 27, 1970 Facts: Basilia Austria Vda.

De Cruz filed a petition for probate, ante mortem, of her last will and testament. The probate was opposed by the present petitioners who were nephews and nieces of Basilia. The opposition was dismissed and the probate of the will was allowed. Under the will of Basilia, the bulk of her estate would pass on to the respondents Perfecto Cruz, Benita Cruz-Meez, Isagani Cruz, Alberto Cruz and Lyn Cruz-Salonga, all of whom had been assumed and declared by Basilia as her own legally adopted children. More than two years after her will was allowed, Basilia died. The respondent Perfecto Cruz was subsequently appointed as executor of her estate. However, the petitioners filed in the same proceedings a petition in intervention for partition alleging in substance that they are the nearest kin of Basilia and that the respondents had not in fact been adopted by the decedent in accordance with law. Such petition in intervention was allowed. More than three years after they were allowed to intervene, the petitioners moved the lower court to set for hearing the matter of the genuineness of the adoption of the respondents. Before the date of the hearing arrived, one of the respondents Benita Cruz Meez filed a motion asking the lower court to confine the petitioners intervention to properties not disposed of in the will of the decedent. The court granted the said motion. The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners was denied by the lower court. Hence, this instant petition for certiorari to have the order restricting petitioners intervention to properties that were not included in the decedents testamentary dispositions annulled was filed. Issue: Whether or not the institution of the heirs would retain efficacy in the event there exists proof that the adoption of the same heirs by the decedent was false Ruling: YES. Article 850 of the Civil Code provides The statement of a false cause for the institution of an heir shall be considered as not written, unless it appears from the will that the testator would not have made such institution if he had known the falsity of such cause. Under this provision, before the institution of heirs may be annulled, the following requisites must concur: First, the cause for the institution of heirs must be stated in the will; second, the cause must be shown to be false; and third, it must appear from the face of the will that the testator would not have made such institution if he had known the falsity of the cause. From the use in the will of the terms sapilitang tagapagmana (compulsory heirs) and sapilitang mana (legitime), the petitioners contended that the institution of the respondents as heirs was only impelled by her belief that they were her compulsory heirs. However, the Court made mention of the fact that if such reason indeed prompted the testatrix in instituting the respondents, Basilia did not make it known in her will. The Court found petitioners theory to be highly speculative of what was in the mind of the testatrix when she executed the will. The Court could not annul the institution of heirs on the basis of guesswork or uncertain implications. The phrases, "mga sapilitang tagapagmana" and "sapilitang mana" were borrowed from the language of the law on succession and were used, respectively, to describe the class of heirs instituted and the abstract object of the inheritance. They offered no absolute indication that the decedent would have willed her estate other than the way she did if she had known that she was not bound by law to make allowance for legitimes. Her disposition of the free portion of her estate which largely favored the respondents showed a perceptible inclination on her part to give to the respondents more than what

she thought the law enjoined her to give to them. This may be taken in comparison with the relatively small devise of land which the decedent had left for her blood relatives, including the petitioners Consuelo Austria-Benta and Lauro Mozo and the children of the petitioner Ruben Austria. If respondents Perfecto Cruz, et al, were excluded from the inheritance, then the petitioners and the other nephews and nieces would succeed to the bulk of the estate by intestacy a result which would subvert the clear wishes of the decedent.