Scribd
Upload
134 views1 page

MANINANG Vs CA

This document summarizes a legal case regarding the will of Clemencia Aseneta. Clemencia left all her property to Dr. Soledad Maninang in her holographic will. However, Bernardo Aseneta, Clemencia's adopted son, claimed to be her sole heir. The trial court dismissed the testate case, but the Supreme Court found that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by doing so without fully considering if Bernardo was effectively disinherited. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court to determine the issue of preterition.

Uploaded by

fermo ii ramos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
134 views1 page

MANINANG Vs CA

This document summarizes a legal case regarding the will of Clemencia Aseneta. Clemencia left all her property to Dr. Soledad Maninang in her holographic will. However, Bernardo Aseneta, Clemencia's adopted son, claimed to be her sole heir. The trial court dismissed the testate case, but the Supreme Court found that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by doing so without fully considering if Bernardo was effectively disinherited. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the trial court to determine the issue of preterition.

Uploaded by

fermo ii ramos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

L-57848 June 19, 1982


RAFAEL E. MANINANG and SOLEDAD L. MANINANG, petitioners,
vs.COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RICARDO L. PRONOVE, JR., as Judge of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal and BERNARDO S. ASENETA, respondents.

FACTS

On May 21, 1977, Clemencia Aseneta, single, died at the Manila Sanitarium Hospital at age 81. She left a
holographic will, the pertinent portions of which are quoted hereunder:

It is my will that all my real properties located in Manila, Makati, Quezon City, Albay and Legaspi City and
all my personal properties shagllbe inherited upon my death by Dra. Soledad L. Maninang with whose
family I have lived continuously for around the last 30 years now. Dra. Maninang and her husband
Pamping have been kind to me. ... I have found peace and happiness with them even during the time
when my sisters were still alive and especially now when I am now being troubled by my nephew
Bernardo and niece Salvacion. I am not incompetent as Nonoy would like me to appear. I know what is
right and wrong. I can decide for myself. I do not consider Nonoy as my adopted son. He has made me
do things against my will.

petitioner Soledad Maninang filed a Petition for probate of the Will of the decedent

herein respondent Bernardo Aseneta, who, as the adopted son, claims to be the sole heir of decedent
Clemencia Aseneta, instituted intestate proceedings

Respondent Bernardo then filed a Motion to Dismiss the Testate Case on the ground that the holographic
will was null and void because he, as the only compulsory heir, was preterited

In her Opposition to said Motion to Dismiss, petitioner Soledad averred that Bernardo was effectively
disinherited by the decedent

RTC
the lower Court ordered the dismissal of the Testate Case

the lower Court denied reconsideration for lack of merit and in the same Order appointed Bernardo as the
administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased Clemencia Aseneta "considering that he is a forced
heir of said deceased

ISSUE
WON THERE WAS PRETERITION – the issue is yet for determination in the lower court

HELD
We find that the Court a quo a quo acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it dismissed the Testate Case .
Generally, the probate of a Will is mandatory.

By virtue of the dismissal of the Testate Case, the determination of that controversial issue has not been
thoroughly considered

the Decision in question is set aside and the Orders of the Court of First Instance-Branch XI, Rizal, dated
September 8, 1980 and December 19, 1980, are nullified. Special Proceeding No. Q-23304 is hereby
remanded to said Court of First Instance-Branch XI.

You might also like