Case Digest (G.R. No. 108581)
Facts:
Lourdes L. Dorotheo v. Court of Appeals, Nilda D. Quintana, for herself and as attorney‑in‑fact of Vicente Dorotheo and Jose Dorotheo, G.R. No. 108581, December 08, 1999, First Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.Private respondents Nilda D. Quintana, Vicente Dorotheo and Jose Dorotheo were the legitimate children of Alejandro Dorotheo and Aniceta Reyes. After Aniceta died in 1969 without settlement of her estate, Alejandro later died. Petitioner Lourdes L. Dorotheo (who claimed to have taken care of Alejandro but admitted they were not married) filed a special proceeding in 1977 for the probate of Alejandro’s last will and testament; in 1981 the trial court issued an order admitting the will to probate, an order from which private respondents did not appeal.
In 1983 private respondents filed a Motion To Declare The Will Intrinsically Void; the trial court granted the motion and issued a dispositive order (dated January 30, 1986 in the subsequent history) declaring Lourdes Legaspi not the wife of the late Alejandro, the will intrinsically void, and declaring the three respondents the only heirs, directing liquidation and distribution of the estates according to intestacy rules. Petitioner moved for reconsideration claiming compensation for care; the motion was denied and she appealed to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s appeal for failure to file appellant’s brief within the extended period (Section 1(f), Rule 50), the dismissal becoming final and executory on February 3, 1989 with entry of judgment on May 16, 1989. A writ of execution issued to implement the final order led private respondents to seek surrender and cancellation of Transfer Certificates of Title; petitioner refused.
On November 29, 1990 Judge Zain B. Angas issued an order setting aside the January 30, 1986 final and executory order and the writ of execution on the ground that the 1986 order was interlocutory. Private respondents’ motion for reconsideration was denied on February 1, 1991; they then sought relief from the Court of Appeals, which nullified the two trial court orders of November 29, 1990 and February 1, 1991.
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court contesting (a) the trial court’s setting aside of its own prior final and executory order and (b) the Court of Appeals’ upholdin...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court have authority to set aside its own prior order that had become final and executory and to nullify the Court of Appeals’ entry of judgment?
- May a last will and testament that was admitted to probate but thereafter declared intrinsically void in a final and executory decision...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)