Short answer. Only the institution of heirs is annulled. Article 854 provides that preterition of a compulsory heir in the direct line annuls the institution of heir, but devises and legacies remain valid insofar as they are not inofficious. The will itself is not entirely voided by the omission.
What the law says
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.
Civil Code, Article 854 — Preterition. Read the full provision →
Preterition strikes the institution, not the whole will
Article 854 draws a precise line: 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. This means the part of the will naming who inherits as heirs is annulled when a compulsory heir in the direct line, such as a child, is completely left out. It does not say the will as a whole becomes void; the consequence is targeted specifically at the institution of heirs.
Devises and legacies generally survive
The same sentence protects the rest of the will: the devises and legacies shall be valid insofar as they are not inofficious. So if your father's will contains specific gifts of particular property to certain people, those gifts remain valid despite the preterition, as long as they do not impair the legitime, the portion of the estate reserved by law for compulsory heirs. A devise or legacy only becomes inofficious, and therefore subject to reduction, to the extent it eats into that reserved legitime.
Why the law separates these two effects
Preterition is treated seriously because it means a compulsory heir was left out of the succession entirely, not merely given less than expected, which is different from simply reducing an heir's share. Annulling the institution of heirs corrects that specific wrong by opening up intestate succession as to that part of the estate. But the testator's specific wishes about particular items of property, expressed through devises and legacies, are not the source of the harm to the omitted heir, so the law preserves them unless they themselves cut into what the law reserves for compulsory heirs.
What this means for settling your father's estate
Because the institution of heirs is annulled but the devises and legacies generally stand, the estate will likely need to be worked out through a combination of what the will actually grants as specific gifts and the rules of intestate succession for whatever is not covered by valid devises and legacies. The omitted child's legal share as a compulsory heir needs to be honored, and any devise or legacy that turns out to impair that share can be reduced to the extent it is inofficious, rather than being struck down entirely as a rule.
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.
- Nelfa Delfin Trinidad, et al. vs. Salvador G. Trinidad, et al, G.R. No. 254695, December 6, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Flora L. Tubera-balintec vs. Heirs of Cesar L. Tubera, G.R. No. 235701, February 15, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Araceli Mayuga vs. Antonio Atienza, G.R. No. 208197, January 10, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Iris Morales vs Ana Maria Olondriz, et al, G.R. No. 198994, February 3, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →