Facts:

• The case involves the Heirs of Jesus Fran and Carmen Mejia Rodriguez (petitioners) against Hon. Bernardo Ll. Salas, Concepcion Mejia Espina, and Maria Mejia Gandiongco (respondents).
• The dispute concerns the probate of the will of Remedios Mejia Vda. de Tiosejo, who died on July 10, 1972, in Cebu City.
• Remedios left properties in Cebu City, Ormoc City, and Puerto Bello, Merida, Leyte.
• On April 23, 1972, she executed a will bequeathing her properties to her collateral relatives and named Rosario Tan or Jesus Fran as executor.
• Jesus Fran filed a petition for probate on July 15, 1972, and the respondents withdrew their opposition.
• The probate court admitted the will on November 13, 1972, and appointed Jesus Fran as executor.
• No creditor claims were presented after the notice was published.
• A Project of Partition was submitted and approved on September 10, 1973, closing the testate proceedings.
• On October 1, 1979, the respondents filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration, alleging forgery and lack of notice.
• The respondent Judge granted the motion, set aside the probate judgment, and converted the proceedings to intestacy.
• Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul the orders of the respondent Judge.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

1. Yes, the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
2. Yes, the reception of evidence by the Clerk of Court was valid.
3. No, annexing the original will to the petition is not a jurisdictional requirement.
4. Yes, the private respondents lost their right to file a petition for relief from judgment.
5. Yes, the decree of ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

1. The Supreme Court found grave abuse of discretion by the respondent Judge in setting aside the probate judgment and declaring the will a forgery. The respondents had withdrawn their opposition and participated in the Project of Partition, indicating prior knowledge and waiver of any claim of lack of notice.
2. The Court upheld the Clerk of Court's reception of evidence, citing recognized and upheld practices in previous cases. The new doctrine from Lim Tanhu v. Ramolete should be applied prospectively.
3. The annexing of the original will to the petition is not a jurisdictional requirement. Section 1, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court allows filing a petition for probate regardless of possessi...continue reading