Preterition from what?

Article 854 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines states:

     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.

      If the omitted compulsory heirs should die before the testator, the institution shall be effectual, without prejudice to the right of representation.

What would consist an omission? Textbook authors citing jurisprudence, and the usual suspects like Manresa and Castan, narrow the answer down to:

1. The heir is not mentioned or instituted in the will.
2. If mentioned, the heir is not given any share.

The authors are conflicted whether donation inter vivos should prevent preterition. There seems to be no jurisprudence as yet.

Ruben Balane has a thorough exposition on preterition in the Philippine Law Journal entitled Preterition - Provenance, Problems, and Proposals which can be accessed here.

Prof. Balane summarized his thoughts in his book Jottings and Jurisprudence in Civil Law (Succession), 2010 Edition on page 274:

In short, as long as there is enough left over for the legitime of the unmentioned heir then there is no preterition. I lean towards Prof. Balane on this matter.

Even Paras thinks so too in the Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Vol. 3, 2013 Edition, page 224:

But Balane seems to buttress his contention with a Court decision that is not very direct on the matter. In the question on preterition in Seangio v. Reyes, GR 140371-72, Nov. 27, 2006 the Supreme Court says:

With regard to the issue on preterition, the Court believes that the compulsory heirs in the direct line were not preterited in the will. It was, in the Court’s opinion, Segundo’s last expression to bequeath his estate to all his compulsory heirs, with the sole exception of Alfredo. Also, Segundo did not institute an heir to the exclusion of his other compulsory heirs. The mere mention of the name of one of the petitioners, Virginia, in the document did not operate to institute her as the universal heir. Her name was included plainly as a witness to the altercation between Segundo and his son, Alfredo.

 I think we will still await a decision that will answer the question frontally.

Ok, here's a few typos which cannot wait for next Saturday. From the article of Balane mentioned above: