Grey v. Fabie
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: After the death of Rosario Fabie y Grey, her alleged will was presented for probate. The oppositors, Serafin Fabie and Jose Fabie, who were acknowledged natural children of Ramon Fabie y Gutierrez (natural cousin of the testatrix), assailed the will. Procedural History: The court, on September 19, 1935, initially resolved the issue of the oppositors' personality, holding that as they could not inherit intestate from their natural cousin, they had no interest in the will and thus no right to impugn it. The probate proceedings were ordered to continue without their intervention. Subsequently, after trial, the court probated the will and appointed Jose Grey as executor. The Petition: The oppositors excepted to both the order denying their intervention and the decision probating the will. They assigned errors concerning the court's holding on their inability to inherit intestate and the validity of the will's execution.
Issue(s)
Whether the oppositors, as natural children, can inherit intestate from their natural cousin, the testatrix, by right of representation. Whether the will presented for probate was executed in accordance with law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed order and decision, upholding the probate of the will and denying the oppositors' intervention.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of intestate succession and right of representation: The Court held that the oppositors, as natural children of Ramon Fabie y Gutierrez, could not inherit ab intestate from their deceased cousin, Rosario Fabie y Grey, by virtue of Article 943 of the Civil Code. This article explicitly states that a natural child has no right to succeed ab intestate the legitimate relatives of the father or mother who acknowledged it, nor shall such relatives inherit from the natural child. The oppositors' contention that they could inherit by right of representation was also dismissed. The Court clarified that in the collateral line, the right of representation takes place only in favor of the children of brothers or sisters, not children of an uncle, as was the case here. Therefore, the oppositors had no legal interest in the will and were not entitled to intervene in the probate proceedings. On the issue of the will's execution: Although the Court initially found no occasion to discuss this issue due to the lack of personality of the oppositors, it proceeded to examine the validity of the will's execution. The Court found that the will and its attestation clause sufficiently indicated that the testatrix signed the will in the presence of the three instrumental witnesses, and that the witnesses signed in the presence of the testatrix and each other. The closing paragraph of the will itself stated that the testatrix signed on the left margin of each page and at the foot of the fifth page in the presence of the witnesses. The Court concluded that any alleged defect in the attestation clause was cured by the evidence appearing within the will itself, confirming its due execution.
Main Doctrine
Natural children cannot inherit ab intestate from the legitimate relatives of the father or mother who acknowledged them, nor can they inherit by right of representation from collateral relatives of the deceased testatrix, as the right of representation is limited to the children of brothers or sisters in the collateral line.