G.R. No. 1331 - People vs Macalintal

Adriana Maloto, the decedent, died on October 20, 1963 in Iloilo City, her residence.
Believing that Adriana died intestate, petitioners Aldina Maloto Casiano, Constancio Maloto, Panfilo Maloto, and Felino Maloto commenced an intestate proceeding (Special Proceeding No. 1736) on November 4, 1963 in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo.
An extrajudicial partition of the estate was executed on February 1, 1964, whereby the estate was divided equally into one-fourth shares for each of the four partitioners, and subsequently approved by the court on March 21, 1964.

On April 1, 1967, a document purported to be the last will and testament of Adriana Maloto, dated January 3, 1940, was delivered to the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo.
The alleged will named petitioners as heirs, with Aldina Maloto Casiano and Constancio Maloto purportedly receiving shares that were different and more valuable than those obtained via the extrajudicial partition.
Additionally, the will allegedly made dispositions to other devisees or legatees including the Asilo de Molo, the Roman Catholic Church of Molo, and Purificacion Miraflor.

On May 24, 1967, petitioners Aldina Maloto Casiano and Constancio Maloto filed a motion in Special Proceeding No. 1736 seeking:

The Asilo de Molo, the Roman Catholic Church of Molo, and Purificacion Miraflor also filed petitions for the allowance of the will.
Petitioners Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto opposed the motion, leading the court to issue an order on November 16, 1968, denying the motion on the ground that it was filed out of time.
A motion for reconsideration of the November 16, 1968 order was filed and subsequently denied by the Court of First Instance.

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-30479), which was dismissed on May 14, 1969. The resolution emphasized that the proper remedy was to initiate a separate proceeding for the probate of the alleged will.
Acting on further motions, the Supreme Court clarified on July 15, 1969 that issues regarding whether the findings in the intestate proceeding amounted to res judicata could be determined in a separate probate proceeding.
Consequently, petitioners commenced Special Proceeding No. 2176 for the probate of the alleged last will and testament of Adriana Maloto.

In the probate proceeding (Special Proceeding No. 2176), Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto filed an opposition with a motion to dismiss, raising the following grounds:

The alleged will had been destroyed and revoked by the testatrix;
The petition was barred by a prior judgment or the doctrine of res judicata;
The estate had already passed out of existence, and title had vested in the distributees of their assigns;
Petitioners Aldina Maloto Casiano and Constancio Maloto were estopped from seeking relief since they were no longer interested parties.

An order dated April 13, 1970 by the probate court dismissed the petition for probate on the basis that the alleged will had been destroyed and revoked, and that the petition was barred by the prior order (November 16, 1968) in Special Proceeding No. 1736.

That the genuine last will and testament had been revoked by Adriana Maloto;
That the petition for probate was barred by the prior judgment (res judicata) from the intestate proceeding;
In dismissing the petition for probate without giving it its due course.

Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the petition for probate of the alleged will by:

Incorrectly holding that the genuine last will and testament had been destroyed or revoked by the testatrix.
Unduly applying the doctrine of res judicata based on the earlier order in Special Proceeding No. 1736 to bar the probate petition.

Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to decide on the probate of the will in an intestate estate proceeding, given that the proper remedy should be to file a separate probate proceeding.

Whether the proper remedy should have been to allow the probate petition to proceed on its merits, rather than dismissing it summarily based on prior motions and orders.