Facts:

This case involves a petition for review filed by Cynthia C. Alaban and several other petitioners against the Court of Appeals and Francisco H. Provido, the respondent. The events leading to this case began on November 8, 2000, when Francisco Provido filed a petition for the probate of the Last Will and Testament of Soledad Provido Elevencionado, who passed away on October 26, 2000, in Janiuay, Iloilo. Respondent claimed to be both an heir and the executor of the decedent's will. On May 30, 2001, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumangas, Iloilo, allowed the probate of the will and issued letters testamentary to the respondent.

However, on October 4, 2001, the petitioners filed a motion to reopen the probate proceedings, contesting the validity of the will and asserting their status as intestate heirs. They raised several claims, including the alleged forgery of the decedent's signature, improper execution of the will, lack of testamentary capacity, and coercion i...

Facts:

Probate Petition and RTC Proceedings

• On November 8, 2000, respondent Francisco Provido filed a petition (SP Proc. No. 00-135) for the probate of the Last Will and Testament of the late Soledad Provido Elevencionado, who died on October 26, 2000 in Janiuay, Iloilo.
• The respondent alleged that he was both the heir and the executor named in the decedent’s will.
• On May 30, 2001, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 68 in Dumangas, Iloilo, rendered a decision allowing the probate of the will and directed issuance of letters testamentary to the respondent.
• More than four months later, on October 4, 2001, petitioners filed a motion for the reopening of the probate proceedings and an opposition to the probate of the will.

Allegations and Claims Raised by Petitioners

• Procedural Defects
• Petitioners argued that the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to alleged non-payment of the correct docket fees.
• They also claimed that there was defective publication and a lack of proper notice to other heirs.
• Substantive Allegations on the Validity of the Will
• The petitioners asserted that the decedent’s signature was forged.
• They contended that the execution of the will did not comply with legal formalities (e.g., the witnesses failed to sign below the attestation clause).
• They alleged that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity at the time of executing the will.
• It was claimed that the will was executed under force, duress, and improper pressure.
• Petitioners maintained that the decedent did not intend to execute a will and mistakenly included properties which no longer belonged to her.
• Petitioners’ Call for Relief
• They prayed for the withdrawal of the letters testamentary issued to the respondent.
• They sought the disposition of the decedent’s estate under intestate succession.

RTC and Subsequent Appellate Proceedings

• RTC Resolution
• On January 11, 2002, the RTC issued an Order denying the petitioners’ motion, finding it unmeritorious.
• The RTC held that notification via publication was sufficient and that the deficiency in docket fee payment required only rectification by the respondent, not outright dismissal.
• The RTC emphasized that its decision had become final and executory even before the motion to reopen was filed.
• Court of Appeals Decision
• Petitioners filed a petition and an application for preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking annulment of the RTC’s decision and order.
• In its Resolution dated February 28, 2002, the CA dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioners had available ordinary remedies—motion for new trial, appeal, or petition for relief from judgment—that they failed to avail of timely.
• The CA found no merit in the allegation of extrinsic fraud, noting that there was no evidence of a deprivation of the petitioners’ right to be heard.
• Concurrent and Related Proceedings
• Petitioners claimed that respondent’s conduct involved a false compromise agreement, which was meant to mask his true intention of securing probate of the will.
• It was further alleged that petitioners were not notified of the probate proceedings until July 2001, leading to their tardy motion.
• A separate petition for letters of administration was filed by one petitioner (Dolores M. Flores) in General Santos City, based on the view that the decedent died intestate, a case that raised issues of jurisdiction due to venue rules.
• The conflict between proceedings in Iloilo and General Santos City contributed to the forum-shopping allegation against petitioners.

Issue:

Jurisdiction and Procedural Validity

• Whether the RTC properly acquired jurisdiction over the petition despite alleged non-payment of docket fees, defective publication, and lack of personal notice to petitioners.
• Whether the procedural requirements for the probate of a will were met through the publication of notice.

Merits of the Alleged Extrinsic Fraud

• Whether the respondent’s actions, including his alleged false offer of compromise and failure to notify, amounted to extrinsic fraud that denied petitioners their right to a fair hearing.
• Whether the non-inclusion of petitioners’ names in the probate petition constitutes extrinsic fraud.

Availability of Appropriate Remedies

• Whether petitioners’ failure to avail themselves of timely remedies such as a motion for new trial, a petition for relief from judgment, or reconsideration bars their petition for annulment of the RTC’s decision.
• Whether the proper remedial process was exhaustively followed before resorting to an action for annulment of judgment.

Forum-Shopping Allegation

• Whether petitioners committed forum-shopping by engaging in multiple proceedings involving the same or related issues concerning the decedent’s estate.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)