G.R. No. L-47994-97 - Maximo vs. Gerochi, Jr.

Cipriano Abut, the decedent, allegedly executed a will naming his son, Generoso Abut, as executor.
Generoso Abut, one of the children of Cipriano from his second marriage, filed a petition on August 4, 1965 before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, praying for the probate of the will and issuance of letters testamentary.
The petition was duly published in accordance with Section 3 of Rule 76, thereby notifying all interested parties.
An amended order issued on September 1, 1965 set the petition for hearing and directed compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76.

Oppositions to the petition were filed by the children of Cipriano Abut from his first marriage, namely Felipe Abut, Presentacion de Rodriguez, and Absoluto Abut.
Before the formal hearing could commence, multiple postponements delayed the proceedings.

Generoso Abut, the original petitioner and executor named in the will, died on January 10, 1966.
Following his death, Gavina Abut—a sister of Generoso and an heir/devisee under Cipriano Abut’s will—filed an amended petition seeking substitution in place of the deceased and prayed for the probate of the will with letters of administration issued in her favor.
The amended petition also noted that the will had been delivered to her by Generoso Abut before his death and was now in her custody.

The Court of First Instance, in its order dated July 2, 1966, dismissed the original petition without prejudice, on the ground that the death of the original petitioner necessitated a new publication as the amended petition introduced a substitution and additional interested parties.
The court’s decision emphasized the requirement that publication (a jurisdictional matter intended to inform interested persons) is essential for the proper exercise of jurisdiction, and any amendment involving additional heirs would require a fresh publication.

Whether the probate court correctly dismissed the petition solely because the original petitioner, Generoso Abut, died before the petition could be formally heard.
Whether the demise of the original petitioner divested the probate court of its jurisdiction over the case, which had already been vested upon filing and publication.
Whether the substitution of Gavina Abut for Generoso Abut, with an amended petition and the naming of additional heirs, necessitates a new publication to confer jurisdiction over the proceeding.
The extent to which procedural steps, such as publication and personal notice under Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76, are jurisdictional requisites versus mere formalities in the probate process.