G.R. No. 53546 - Heirs of Fran vs. Salas

Case Digest (G.R. No. 53546)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Parties and Nature of the Case

Petitioners: The heirs of the late Jesus Fran and Carmen Mejia Rodriguez.
Respondents: Hon. Bernardo Ll. Salas (Judge of Branch VIII, RTC Cebu), Concepcion Mejia Espina, and Maria Mejia Gandiongco (sisters of the deceased Remedios Mejia Vda. de Tiosejo).
Subject: Petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul orders issued by respondent Judge in Special Proceedings No. 3309-R, concerning the probate of the last will and testament of Remedios Mejia Vda. de Tiosejo.

Essential Chronology and Proceedings

Remedios Mejia Vda. de Tiosejo, a widow without descendants or ascendants, died on July 10, 1972.
She executed her last will and testament on April 23, 1972, bequeathing properties to collateral relatives and appointing Rosario Tan or Jesus Fran as executors.
On July 15, 1972, Jesus Fran filed a petition for probate of the will before the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch VIII, presided by Judge Antonio D. Cinco.
Private respondents initially manifested the need for time to study the petition but later withdrew their opposition on the date of the initial hearing, explicitly consenting to the allowance of the will and appointment of Jesus Fran as executor.
Evidence was presented, with the original will marked as Exhibit “F” and an English translation also submitted. The court authorized the Clerk of Court to receive evidence for the petitioner.
On November 13, 1972, the court admitted the will to probate and appointed Jesus Fran as executor, using his bond as special administrator as the executor’s bond.
Subsequent notice to creditors was issued, but no claims were filed.
On January 4, 1973, Jesus Fran filed an Inventory of the Estate and subsequently submitted a Project of Partition based on the will’s dispositions, signed by most devisees. Respondents Concepcion M. Espina and others furnished certifications expressing no objection.
On September 10, 1973, the court approved the Project of Partition, declared the parties therein as heirs, and closed the proceedings.
Later developments:

The original Branch VIII was converted to a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
By virtue of P.D. No. 1439, Branch XVII (Danao City) was transferred to Cebu City and designated Branch VIII, presided over by respondent Judge Bernardo L. Salas.
On October 1, 1979, private respondents filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration filed almost seven years after the probate judgment and over six years after the proceedings were declared closed.

Grounds Raised in Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration by Respondents

Non-availability of the will to them.
The will is a forgery.
They were not notified of the orders or resolutions relevant to evidence reception and closure of proceedings.
Reception of evidence by Clerk of Court was void (citing Lim Tanhu vs. Ramolete).
Defects in notice regarding the Project of Partition hearing.
Allegation that Jesus Fran signed the project as administrator, not executor, indicating intestacy.
Failure to submit accounting and failure to distribute estate.

Proceedings on the Omnibus Motion and Related Actions

Despite petitioners’ opposition and motion to dismiss, respondent Judge set the Omnibus Motion for hearing on April 8, 1980.
Hearing proceeded; testimonies admitted including from handwriting expert asserting forgery of testatrix’ signature.
On June 2, 1980, respondent Judge issued an order finding the will’s signature a forgery, declared intestacy, revoked executor appointment, and reopened the proceedings as intestate succession.
Petitioners filed second supplemental petition to nullify the June 2 order and sought restraining orders.
Private respondents opposed petitions and raised additional issues including alleged fraud and deprivation of opportunity to examine the will.
This Court issued a restraining order but respondent Judge nonetheless issued the June 2 order before it was served.

Subsequent Developments

Private respondent Maria Gandiongco later swore an affidavit withdrawing opposition, acknowledging the genuineness of the will, and denying authorization of motions filed on her behalf after withdrawal of counsel.
Private respondent Concepcion Espina contested Gandiongco’s withdrawal, claiming Gandiongco was incapacitated at the time.
Parties filed memoranda and manifesting motions.
Petitioners’ lead petitioner Jesus Fran died in 1984 and his heirs substituted in the case.

Issues:

Whether the respondent judge had jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion in:

Setting for hearing the Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration filed almost seven years after the probate judgment was rendered and the proceedings closed.
Declaring the will a forgery, annulling the probate judgment and related orders, revoking executor appointment, and converting the proceedings to intestacy.

Whether the probate court properly acquired jurisdiction over the petition for probate despite alleged procedural defects.

Whether the reception of evidence before the Clerk of Court was valid.

Whether the withdrawal of opposition by the private respondents estopped them from challenging the will and the probate proceedings.

Whether the petitioners were guilty of fraud, nondisclosure, or irregularity affecting the validity of the probate judgment.

Whether the lapse of time and finality of the probate judgment barred reopening of the case by the court.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (G.R. No. 53546) Core Legal Reasoning Model Expanded

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 53546) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 53546)
Core Legal Reasoning Model

Expanded

Case Digest (G.R. No. 53546)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model