Case Summary (G.R. No. 156021)
Key Dates
– 26 October 2000: Death of decedent.
– 8 November 2000: Filing of petition for probate (SP Proc. No. 00-135).
– 30 May 2001: RTC Branch 68, Dumangas, Iloilo, allows probate and issues letters testamentary.
– 4 October 2001: Petitioners file motion to reopen probate proceedings.
– 11 January 2002: RTC denies motion to reopen.
– 28 February 2002: CA dismisses petition for annulment of judgment (CA-G.R. SP No. 69221).
– 23 September 2005: Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution
– Rules of Court, particularly Rule 76 on probate of wills; Rules 37–38 on motion for new trial, reconsideration, and relief from judgment; Rule 47 on annulment of judgments.
Probate of the Will and Issuance of Letters Testamentary
Respondent filed for probate of the decedent’s holographic will, alleging his institution as sole heir and executor. The RTC took jurisdiction through proper publication and payment of docket fees (deficiency later required payment), and on 30 May 2001 rendered a decision admitting the will to probate and issuing letters testamentary.
Petitioners’ Opposition and Motion to Reopen
More than four months after the decision became final, petitioners—asserting intestate heirship—filed on 4 October 2001 a motion to reopen proceedings and opposed probate on grounds including defective execution, forgery, lack of testamentary capacity, duress, and lack of notice. They sought withdrawal of letters testamentary and intestate distribution.
RTC Denial of Motion and Finality of the Decision
On 11 January 2002 the RTC denied the motion to reopen as untimely, ruling that its decision had become final and executory before petitioners filed for reopening. The court also held that publication constituted adequate notice and that fee deficiencies did not deprive it of jurisdiction.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
Petitioners elevated the matter to the CA with a petition for annulment of the RTC decision and order, alleging extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. The CA dismissed the petition on 28 February 2002 for failure to show that petitioners were prevented through no fault of their own from availing of remedies such as new trial, appeal, or relief from judgment. Reconsideration was denied.
Issues on Remedies and Extrinsic Fraud
Petitioners contend that they were not parties to the probate case and therefore could not file a motion for new trial or appeal, and that respondent’s concealment of their identities and false compromise offer amounted to extrinsic fraud warranting annulment of judgment. Respondent argues that petitioners were deemed parties by publication, could have resorted to Rules 37–38 remedies, and that personal notice is procedural convenience only.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Available Remedies
The Rules of Court allow a motion for new trial or reconsideration within 15 days of notice, and a petition for relief from judgment within 60 days of knowledge (six months from entry). Such remedies are available only to parties in the proceedings. Here, publication of the probate petition rendered all interested persons parties in rem, entitling petitioners to those remedies. Their failure to timely move for new trial or to file relief from judgment bars subsequent annulment.
In Rem Nature of Probate Proceedings and Jurisdiction
Probate is in rem. Publication of notice for three consecutive weeks in a general-circulation newspaper and furnishing notice to known devisees and heirs vests jurisdiction over all interested parties, including petitioners. Personal notice is not a jurisdictional pr
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 156021)
Facts of the Case
- On 26 October 2000, Soledad Provido Elevencionado died in Janiuay, Iloilo; on 8 November 2000 respondent Francisco H. Provido filed SP Proc. No. 00-135 for probate of her Last Will and Testament, claiming to be heir and executor.
- On 30 May 2001, RTC Branch 68, P.D. Monfort North, Dumangas, Iloilo, rendered a Decision allowing the will’s probate and directed issuance of letters testamentary to respondent.
- On 4 October 2001, petitioners filed a motion to reopen the probate proceedings and an opposition to the allowance of the will, asserting their status as intestate heirs.
- Petitioners challenged the court’s jurisdiction (defective publication, non-payment of correct docket fees, lack of notice) and contended that the will was invalid due to: forged signature; witnesses not signing below the attestation clause; lack of testamentary capacity; duress; absence of testamentary intention; and inclusion of properties not owned by the decedent.
- They prayed for withdrawal of the letters testamentary and distribution of the estate under intestate succession.
Procedural History
- 11 January 2002: RTC denied petitioners’ motion as unmeritorious, ruling that they were deemed notified by publication and that the docket-fee deficiency was curable; the Decision had become final and executory before the motion.
- Petitioners elevated the case to the CA as CA-G.R. SP No. 69221, seeking annulment of the RTC Decision (30 May 2001) and Order (11 January 2002) on grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
- 28 February 2002: CA dismissed the petition for failure to show unavailability of ordinary remedies and absence of extrinsic fraud; motion for reconsideration was denied (12 November 2002).
- Petitioners filed a petition for review with this Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the CA and urging application of Rule 47 for the guidance of bench and bar.
Issues Presented
- Whether petitioners, having become parties by publication in in rem probate proceedings, could have availed themselves of ordinary remedies under Rules 37 (motion for new trial/reconsideration) and 38 (p