G.R. No. 195320 - Bureau of Internal Revenue vs. Acosta

Case Summary (G.R. No. 195320)

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Decedent’s death: 26 October 2000. Respondent’s probate petition filed: 8 November 2000 (SP Proc. No. 00-135). RTC decision probabilizing the will and issuing letters testamentary: 30 May 2001. Petitioners’ motion to reopen/protest and opposition filed: 4 October 2001. RTC order denying motion to reopen: 11 January 2002. Petition for annulment of judgment filed with Court of Appeals (CA) and dismissed by CA: Resolution promulgated 28 February 2002 (reconsideration denied 12 November 2002). Petition for review to the Supreme Court culminating in the present denial.

Procedural History in Brief

Respondent sought probate of the decedent’s will. RTC allowed the will and issued letters testamentary to respondent. Petitioners later filed a motion to reopen and an opposition to the probate, alleging lack of jurisdiction, defective publication, lack of notice, forgery, improper execution, lack of testamentary capacity, and undue influence. RTC denied the motion as unmeritorious and found its decision final and executory before petitioners’ filing. Petitioners sought annulment of the judgment in the CA; CA dismissed for failure to show exhaustion of available remedies and lack of extrinsic fraud. The Supreme Court reviewed the CA resolutions and denied the petition.

Petitioners’ Principal Claims

Petitioners alleged (1) the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to nonpayment of correct docket fees, defective publication, and lack of notice to heirs; (2) the will was inauthentic or invalid due to forgery, improper attestation, lack of testamentary capacity, coercion, lack of testamentary intent, and inclusion of properties not owned by the decedent; (3) respondent’s conduct constituted extrinsic fraud (including a feigned compromise) preventing their participation in the probate, thereby justifying annulment of the final judgment; and (4) they could not have availed of ordinary remedies because they were not made parties and only learned of the probate much later.

RTC’s Rulings as Reviewed

The RTC (Branch 68, Dumangas) allowed the will and issued letters testamentary to respondent on 30 May 2001. It later denied petitioners’ motion to reopen on 11 January 2002, finding petitioners were deemed notified by publication, the docket fee deficiency did not deprive the court of jurisdiction (only required payment of deficiency), and the RTC decision had become final and executory prior to petitioners’ motion.

CA Ruling and Reasoning

The CA dismissed petitioners’ petition for annulment of judgment for failure to show they had been prevented through no fault of their own from availing themselves of ordinary remedies (motion for new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment). The CA found no adequate showing of extrinsic fraud and noted petitioners had not presented these grounds in the RTC before seeking relief in the CA. Reconsideration was denied.

Applicable Procedural Law Cited

Rule 76, Rules of Court (probate of will): Sec. 1 (who may petition), Sec. 3 (publication requirement), Sec. 4 (in rem nature of probate proceedings).
Rule 37, Sec. 1 (motion for new trial or reconsideration grounds and period).
Rule 38, Secs. 1–2 (petition for relief from judgment; relief from denial of appeal).
Rule 47, Sec. 1 (action for annulment of judgment; grounds: extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction/denial of due process).
Relevant doctrines and authorities cited by the Court include Abut v. Abut, Barco v. Court of Appeals, Manipor v. Spouses Ricafort, Islamic Da’wah Council, Pinlac v. Court of Appeals, Bobis v. Court of Appeals, Teodoro v. Court of Appeals, and Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Alejo.

Supreme Court’s Analysis — Party Status and Jurisdiction by Publication

The Court emphasized that probation proceedings are in rem; with statutory publication the court’s jurisdiction extends to all persons interested in the will or estate. Rule 76 requires publication for three consecutive weeks and furnishing notice to designated or known heirs, legatees, and devisees. Publication is “notice to the whole world” and renders everyone, including petitioners, parties to the probate by virtue of the public notice. Because publication occurred, petitioners became parties to the probate proceedings and were therefore in a position to avail themselves of Remedies under Rules 37 and 38. The Court also held that the deficiency in docket fees did not divest the RTC of jurisdiction; it merely required respondent to pay the deficiency.

Supreme Court’s Analysis — Remedies Available and Petitioners’ Inaction

The Court explained that motions for new trial or reconsideration (Rule 37) and petitions for relief from judgment (Rule 38) are available to parties in the proceedings. Petitioners had in fact filed a motion to reopen (characterized as essentially a motion for new trial) but it was denied as untimely because it was filed after the decision had become final and executory. Conceding petitioners only learned of the RTC decision after finality, the Court held they still could have filed a petition for relief from judgment within the statutory period but failed to do so. The Court therefore found petitioners unjustified in declining the ordinary remedies and concluded they could not invoke annulment of judgment to benefit from their own inaction or negligence.

Supreme Court’s Analysis — Extrinsic Fraud and Denial of Due Process

The Court defined extrinsic fraud as conduct that prevents a party from having a trial or presenting the whole case, focusing on whether fraudulent conduct deprived a party of his day in court. Petitioners alleged respondent omitted their names and falsely induced a compromise to prevent their opposition. The Court rejected these contentions: respondent was named as sole heir in the will and petitioners (nephews and nieces) were neither compulsory nor testate heirs under Article 842 of the Civil Code an

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 195320)

Nature of the Case and Relief Sought

Petition for review filed with the Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolutions in CA-G.R. SP No. 69221 that dismissed petitioners’ petition for annulment of judgment.
The underlying proceedings concern the probate of the Last Will and Testament of Soledad Provido Elevencionado (the decedent).
Petitioners sought annulment of the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) Decision allowing probate and issuance of letters testamentary to respondent Francisco H. Provido, alleging extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, and prayed that letters testamentary be withdrawn and the estate be administered under intestacy.

Parties, Identifications and Roles

Petitioners: Cynthia C. Alaban, Francis Collado, Jose P. Collado, Judith Provido, Clarita Provido, Alfredo Provido, Manuel Provido, Jr., Lorna Dina E. Provido, Severo Arenga, Jr., Sergio Arenga, Eduardo Arenga, Carol Arenga, Ruth Babasa, Norma Hijastro, Dolores M. Flores, Antonio Marin, Jr., Jose Marin, Sr., Mathilde Marin — alleged intestate heirs of the decedent.
Respondents: Court of Appeals and Francisco H. Provido — respondent claimed to be heir and executor under the decedent’s will and was petitioner in SP Proc. No. 00-135.
Decedent: Soledad Provido Elevencionado, died on 26 October 2000 in Janiuay, Iloilo.

Chronology of Key Proceedings and Dates

26 October 2000: Death of decedent.
8 November 2000: Francisco H. Provido filed petition for probate of the decedent’s will (SP Proc. No. 00-135).
30 May 2001: RTC, Branch 68 (P.D. Monfort North, Dumangas, Iloilo) rendered Decision allowing the probate of the will and directing issuance of letters testamentary to respondent.
4 October 2001: Petitioners filed a motion for the reopening of probate proceedings and opposition to allowance of the will and issuance of letters testamentary.
11 January 2002: RTC issued an Order denying petitioners’ motion as unmeritorious.
28 February 2002: Court of Appeals promulgated Resolution dismissing petitioners’ petition for annulment of judgment (CA-G.R. SP No. 69221).
12 November 2002: Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
9 January 2002 / 28 January 2002: In a separate action, Dolores M. Flores filed Notice of Appeal from dismissal of her petition for letters of administration in General Santos City; the case was forwarded to the CA.
23 September 2005: Supreme Court decision denying the petition (G.R. No. 156021).

Factual Background Presented by Parties

Respondent alleged he was named heir and executor in the decedent’s Last Will and Testament and sought probate in Janiuay, Iloilo.
Petitioners alleged they are intestate heirs and asserted they were not notified of the probate proceedings; they contend the will is invalid for multiple reasons (forgery, defective execution, lack of testamentary capacity, duress, lack of testamentary intent, inclusion of properties not owned by decedent).
Petitioners claimed pre-petition conferences were held among heirs and respondent agreed to accept a one-sixth share; petitioners drafted a compromise agreement which respondent allegedly refused to sign, and contend respondent feigned interest to conceal intent to secure probate.
Petitioners assert they learned of the probate only in July 2001 and filed their motion to reopen and opposition on 4 October 2001.

RTC Findings and Rulings

RTC allowed probate of the will and directed the issuance of letters testamentary to respondent (Decision dated 30 May 2001).
RTC, in its Order of 11 January 2002, denied petitioners’ motion to reopen the probate proceedings as unmeritorious.
RTC held that:
- Petitioners were deemed notified of the hearing by publication.
- Deficiency in docket fees did not deprive the court of jurisdiction and was not ground for outright dismissal; the remedy was to require respondent to pay the deficiency.
- The RTC Decision had already become final and executory before petitioners filed their motion to reopen.

Relief Sought by Petitioners and Grounds Asserted

Pray for withdrawal of letters testamentary and disposition of the estate under intestacy.
Assert lack of jurisdiction of the RTC due to:
- Non-payment of correct docket fees.
- Defective publication.
- Lack of notice to other heirs.
Assert invalidity of the will on the grounds that:
- The decedent’s signature was forged.
- Witnesses failed to sign below the attestation clause (improper execution).
- Decedent lacked testamentary capacity.
- The will was executed under force, duress, and improper pressure.
- Decedent had no intention to make a will at the time of signing.
- Decedent did not know the properties disposed of; some properties were no longer hers.
Allege extrinsic fraud by respondent through omission/concealment of petitioners’ identities and by offering a false compromise to prevent their opposition.

Court of Appeals’ Disposition and Reasoning

CA dismissed petitioners’ petition for annulment of judgment.
CA reasoning:
- Petitioners failed to show that they could not have availed themselves of ordinary remedies (new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment) or other appropriate remedies through no fault of their own.
- Petitioners’ allegation of extrinsic fraud was unsubstantiated, and there was no showing that they raised that ground in a motion for new trial or petition for relief from judgment in the RTC.
CA denied reconsideration for lack of merit.

Respondent’s Contentions Before the Courts

Petitioners were able to avail themselves of remedies under Rules 37 and 38 (motion for new trial and petition for relief from judgment) and in fact filed a motion for new trial (motion to reopen).
Petitioners could have filed a petition for relief from judgment since they learned of the RTC judgment some three and a half months after promulgation.
There was n