Short answer. Yes, where the will is genuinely open to more than one reading. Article 791 states that of two modes of interpreting a will, the one preferred is whichever prevents intestacy. If one reading leaves part of the estate without an heir and another does not, the anti-intestacy reading is favored.
What the law says
of two modes of interpreting a will, that is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy
Civil Code, Article 791 — Give Effect to Every Word. Read the full provision →
The preference is written into the article itself
Article 791 does not leave the choice between competing readings to chance or to whichever party argues more persuasively about your father's probable intent in the abstract. Of two modes of interpreting a will, that is to be preferred which will prevent intestacy. Where a will can genuinely be read two ways, and one of those readings would leave part of the estate undistributed under the will while the other would not, the statute directs the court toward the reading that keeps the property passing under the will.
The rule only applies where real ambiguity exists
This preference is a tie-breaker for genuine ambiguity, not a license to override what the will actually and clearly says. If your father's will is clear that a particular portion of the estate was simply never addressed or was deliberately left out, the anti-intestacy preference does not manufacture a disposition where none was intended. It operates specifically when the language is reasonably open to more than one interpretation, and one of those interpretations happens to result in intestacy for part of the estate.
How this connects to the broader interpretive approach
This preference for avoiding intestacy works alongside the article's other instruction to give every expression in the will some effect rather than treating any of it as inoperative. Both rules point the same direction: toward a reading that makes the will function as a complete disposition of the estate, rather than one that lets a passage go unexplained or unenforced. A court weighing your two proposed readings would look at which one actually accomplishes that, not simply which one seems more literal on its own.
What this means for the disputed portion
If you can show that the will is genuinely capable of the reading that avoids intestacy — not just that you prefer that outcome — Article 791 gives you a real basis to argue for it. The strength of your position depends on how plausibly the will's actual language supports that reading, since the preference does not rescue an interpretation that the text cannot reasonably bear, however desirable avoiding intestacy might be for your family.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Rizalino B. Abella, et al. vs. Atty. Sergio C. Sumayod, Jane A. Pica, Annaliza Yu, and Petron Corp., Inc, G.R. No. 269598, April 2, 2025 — read the decision on LawPhil →