AZNAR vs. CHRISTENSEN DUNCAN

ADOLFO C. AZNAR vs. MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN DUNCAN

G.R. No. L-24365 June 30, 1966

MAKALINTAL, J.:

Facts:

Edward E. Christensen, a citizen of California with domicile in the Philippines, died leaving a will. The will was admitted to probate. In that same decision the court declared that Maria Helen Christensen Garcia was a natural child of the deceased. The declaration was appealed to this Court, and was affirmed.

In another incident relative to the partition of the deceased's estate, the trial court approved the project submitted by the executor in accordance with the provisions of the will, which said court found to be valid under the law of California. Helen Garcia appealed from the order of approval, and this Court reversed the same on the ground that the validity of the provisions of the will should be governed by Philippine law, and returned the case to the lower court with instructions that the partition be made as provided by said law.

 CFI issued an order approving the project of partition submitted by the executor, wherein the properties of the estate were divided equally between Maria Lucy Christensen Duncan (named in the will as Maria Lucy Christensen Daney, and hereinafter referred to as merely Lucy Duncan), whom the testator had expressly recognized in his will as his daughter (natural) and Helen Garcia, who had been judicially declared as such after his death. The said order was based on the proposition that since Helen Garcia had been preterited in the will the institution of Lucy Duncan as heir was annulled, and hence the properties passed to both of them as if the deceased had died intestate, saving only the legacies left in favor of certain other persons, which legacies have been duly approved by the lower court and distributed to the legatees.

Issue:

Whether or not Helen Garcia was preterited or she has only the right for the completion of her legitime

Ruling:

In order that the right of a forced heir may be limited only to the completion of his legitime (instead of the annulment of the institution of heirs) is it necessary that what has been left to him in the will "by any title," as by legacy, be granted to him in his capacity as heir, that is, a titulo de heredero? In other words, should he be recognized or referred to in the will as heir? This question is pertinent because in the will of the deceased Edward E. Christensen Helen Garcia is not mentioned as an heir — indeed her status as such is denied — but is given a legacy of P3,600.00.

Manresa cites particularly three decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain. In each one of those cases the testator left to one who was a forced heir a legacy worth less than the legitime, but without referring to the legatee as an heir or even as a relative, and willed the rest of the estate to other persons. It was held that Article 815 applied, and the heir could not ask that the institution of heirs be annulled entirely, but only that the legitime be completed. The foregoing solution is indeed more in consonance with the expressed wishes of the testator in the present case as may be gathered very clearly from the provisions of his will. He refused to acknowledge Helen Garcia as his natural daughter, and limited her share to a legacy of P3,600.00.

The fact that she was subsequently declared judicially to possess such status is no reason to assume that had the judicial declaration come during his lifetime his subjective attitude towards her would have undergone any change and that he would have willed his estate equally to her and to Lucy Duncan, who alone was expressly recognized by him.

Adjudication:

Wherefore, the order of the trial court dated October 29, 1964, approving the project of partition as submitted by the executor-appellee, is hereby set aside.