INSTITUTION OF HEIR

AUSTRIA V. REYES

If the impelling reason or cause for the institution of the respondents as her heirs was the testatrix's
belief that under the law she could not do otherwise, she did not make it known in her will. Surely if she
was aware that succession to the legitime takes place by operation of law, independent of her own
wishes, she would not have found it convenient to name her supposed compulsory heirs to their
legitimes. Her express adoption of the rules on legitimes should very well indicate her complete
agreement with that statutory scheme. But even this, like the petitioners' own proposition, is highly
speculative of what was in the mind of the testatrix when she executed her will. One fact prevails,
however, and it is the decedent's will does not state in a specific or unequivocal manner the cause for
such institution of heirs. We cannot annul the same on the basis of guesswork or uncertain implications

JLT AGRO V. BALANSANG

Article 854 provides that the preterition or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in the
direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death of the testator,
shall annul the institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not
inofficious. Manresa defines preterition as the omission of the heir in the will, either by not naming him
at all or, while mentioning him as father, son, etc., by not instituting him as heir without disinheriting
him expressly, nor assigning to him some part of the properties. It is the total omission of a compulsory
heir in the direct line from inheritance. It consists in the silence of the testator with regard to a
compulsory heir, omitting him in the testament, either by not mentioning him at all, or by not giving him
anything in the hereditary property but without expressly disinheriting him, even if he is mentioned in
the will in the latter case. But there is no preterition where the testator allotted to a descendant a share
less than the legitime, since there was no total omission of a forced heir.

NUGUID V. NUGUID

Preterition "consists in the omission in the testator's will of the forced heirs or anyone of them, either
because the are not mentioned therein, or, though mentioned, they are neither instituted as heirs nor
are expressly disinherited." (Neri, et al. vs. Akutin, at al., 72 Phil., p. 325.) Disinheritance; in turn, "is a
testamentary disposition depriving any compulsory heir of heir share in the legitime for a cause
authorized by law." (Justice J.B.L. Reyes and R.C. Puno, "An Outline of Philippine Civil Law," 1956 ed.,
Vol. III, p. 8, citing cases.) Disinheritance is always "voluntary"; preterition upon the other hand, is
presumed to be "involuntary.