Case Digest (G.R. No. 156021)
Facts:
Cynthia C. Alaban, Francis Collado, Jose P. Collado, Judith Provido, Clarita Provido, Alfredo Provido, Manuel Provido, Jr., Lorna Dina E. Provido, Severo Arenga, Jr., Sergio Arenga, Eduardo Arenga, Carol Arenga, Ruth Babasa, Norma Hijastro, Dolores M. Flores, Antonio Marin, Jr., Jose Marin, Sr., and Mathilde Marin v. Court of Appeals and Francisco H. Provido, G.R. No. 156021, September 23, 2005, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.
On November 8, 2000, Francisco H. Provido (respondent) filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 68, P.D. Monfort North, Dumangas, Iloilo, SP Proc. No. 00-135, a petition for the probate of the Last Will and Testament of Soledad Provido Elevencionado (the decedent). Respondent alleged he was the heir and executor. On May 30, 2001, the RTC rendered a Decision allowing probate and directed issuance of letters testamentary to respondent.
Petitioners (the numerous nieces and nephews of the decedent) claim they learned of the probate only in July 2001 and on October 4, 2001 filed a motion to reopen the probate proceedings and an opposition to allowance of the will, alleging among other defects nonpayment of correct docket fees, defective publication and lack of notice to the heirs, forgery of the decedent’s signature, improper execution (witnesses did not sign below the attestation clause), lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, absence of testamentary intent, and inclusion of property not belonging to the decedent. The RTC denied the motion to reopen by Order of January 11, 2002, holding the decision had become final and executable before petitioners’ filing and that publication constituted notice.
Petitioners then filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 69221, seeking annulment of the RTC Decision and Order on grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, and alleging respondent had feigned a compromise to lull them into inaction. In a Resolution promulgated February 28, 2002, the CA dismissed the petition for failure to show that ordinary remedies (new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment) were unavailable through no fault of petitioners and found no extrinsic fraud. Reconsideration was denied November 12, 2002.
Separately, petitioner Dolores M. Flores filed a petition for letters of administration in the RTC of General Santos City (SP No. 1181) claiming intestacy; that petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (venue being where the decedent died) and was appealed to the CA (CA-G.R. No. 74924). The CA and thereafter the Supreme Court were not informed of this pending related appeal by petitioners in their certification against forum-shopping.
Petitioners brought the present petition for review to this Court challenging the CA’s dismissal, arguing (1) the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in requiring exhaustion of remedies despite petitioners not being parties and not having been notified, and (2) that the Court should...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners’ petition for annulment of judgment for failure to show they had not availed of ordinary remedies through no fault of their own?
- Were the petitioners entitled to annul the RTC’s probate decision on the substantive grounds alleged (extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisd...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)