G.R. No. L-26751 - Matute vs. Court of Appeals

On October 26, 2000, Soledad Provido Elevencionado (“decedent”) died in Janiuay, Iloilo.
On November 8, 2000, Francisco H. Provido (“respondent”) filed SP Proc. No. 00-135 in RTC Branch 68, Dumangas, Iloilo, seeking probate of the decedent’s Last Will and Testament and appointment as executor.
On May 30, 2001, the RTC rendered a Decision allowing the probate and issued letters testamentary in favor of respondent.

On October 4, 2001, petitioners (the decedent’s nephews and nieces) moved to reopen the probate proceedings and opposed the will, claiming they were intestate heirs and that:

The RTC lacked jurisdiction (incorrect docket fees, defective publication, lack of notice).
The will was invalid (forgery, improper execution, lack of capacity, duress, no testamentary intent, inclusion of non-estate property).

The RTC denied the motion on January 11, 2002, ruling that petitioners were deemed notified by publication, the fee defect was curable, and the Decision had become final and executory before the motion was filed.

Petitioners filed CA-G.R. SP No. 69221 seeking annulment of the RTC Decision and Order on grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
On February 28, 2002, the CA dismissed the petition for failure to show non-availability of ordinary remedies (new trial, appeal, relief from judgment) and absence of extrinsic fraud.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on November 12, 2002.

Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, alleging CA abuse of discretion and seeking guidance on Rule 47 (annulment of judgments).
Respondent contended petitioners could have filed a motion for new trial or relief from judgment, that no extrinsic fraud existed, and that notice by publication sufficed. He also accused petitioners of forum-shopping.
In a separate case (SP No. 1181, RTC Gen. Santos City; CA-G.R. No. 74924), petitioner Dolores M. Flores sought letters of administration on intestacy grounds; the RTC dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the CA appeal was pending.

Whether petitioners failed to exhaust or avail themselves of ordinary remedies under Rules 37 and 38 before seeking annulment of judgment under Rule 47.
Whether petitioners were entitled to personal notice of the probate proceedings and whether its absence constitutes extrinsic fraud or jurisdictional defect.
Whether the Supreme Court should entertain a Rule 47 petition absent a binding precedent.
Whether petitioners engaged in forum-shopping by maintaining multiple proceedings on the same subject.