JUAN PALACIOS, petitioner-appellant, vs. MARIA CATIMBANG PALACIOS, oppositor-appellee.

Augusto Francisco and Vicente Reyes Villavicencio for appellant. Laureano C. Alano and Enrique A. Amador for appellee.

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: Juan Palacios executed his last will and testament on June 25, 1946 and availing himsel o the provisions o the new !ivil !ode, he iled on "a# 2$, 1956 %e ore the !ourt o &irst 'nstance o (atangas a petition or its approval. 'n said will, he instituted as his sole heirs his natural children )ntonio !. Palacios and )ndrea !. Palacios. *n June 21, 1956, "aria !atim%ang iled a opposition to the pro%ate o the will alleging that she is the ac+nowledged natural daughter o petitioner %ut that she was completel# ignored in said will thus impairing here legitime. ) ter the presentation o petitioner,s evidence relative to the essential re-uisites and ormalities provided %# law or the validit# o a will, the court on Jul# 6, 1956 issued an order admitting the will to pro%ate. .he court, however, set a date or the hearing o the opposition relative to the intrinsic validit# o the will and, a ter proper hearing concerning this incident, the court issued another order declaring oppositor to %e the natural child o petitioner and annulling the will inso ar as it impairs her legitime, with costs against petitioner. &rom this last order, petitioner gave notice o his intention to appeal directl# to the /upreme !ourt, and accordingl#, the record was elavated to this !ourt. 't should %e noted that petition instituted the present proceeding in order to secure the pro%ate o his will availing himsel o the provisions o )rticle 0$0, paragraph 2, o the new !ivil !ode, which permit a testator to petition the proper court during his li etime or the allowance o his will, %ut to such petition on "aria !atim%ang iled an opposition alleging that she is the ac+nowledged natural daughter o petitioner %ut that she was completel# ignored in the will thus impairing her o%1ect to the pro%ate o the will inso ar as it due execution is concerned or on the ground that it has not complied with the ormalities prescri%ed %# law2 rather she o%1ects to its intrinsic validit# or to the legalit# o the provisions o the will. 3e hold that such opposition cannot %e entertained in this proceeding %ecause its onl# purpose is merel# to determine i the will has %een executed in accordance with the re-uirements o the law, much less i the purpose o the opposition is to show that the oppositor is an ac+nowledged natural child who allegedl# has %een ignored in the will or issue cannot %e raised here %ut in a separate action. .his is especiall# so when the testator, as in the present case, is still alive and has merel# iled a petition or the allowance o his will leaving the e ects thereo a ter his death.
lawphi1.net

.his is in line with our ruling in onta!ano vs. "uesa, 14 Phil., 646, wherein we said5 6.he authentication o the will decides no other -uestions than such as touch upon the capacit# o the testator and the compliance with those re-uisites or solemnities which the law prescri%es or the validit# o a will. 't does not determine nor even %# implication pre1udge the validit# or e icienc# o the provisions2 that ma# %e impugned as %eing vicious or null, notwithstanding its authentication.

.he -uestions relating to these points remain entirel# un-a ected, and ma# %e raised even a ter the will has %een authenticated.6 *n the other hand, 6a ter a will has %een pro%ated during the li etime o a testator, it does not necessaril# mean that he cannot alter or revo+e the same %e ore he has had a chance to present such petition, the ordinar# pro%ate proceedings a ter the testator,s death would %e in order6 78eport o the !ode !ommission, pp. 5$-549..he reason or this comment is that the rights to the succession are transmitted rom the moment o the death o the decedent 7)rticle 444, new !ivil !ode.9. 't is clear that the trial court erred in entertaining the opposition and in annulling the portion o the will which allegedl# impairs the legitime o the oppositor on the ground that, as it has ound, she is an extraneous matter which should %e treshed out in a separate action. 3here ore, the order appealed rom is set aside, without pronouncement as to costs.