Case Summary (G.R. No. 108581)
Petitioner and Respondents
Petitioner seeks recognition of an admitted but later invalidated will and appointment as executrix, asserting compensation for caregiving. Respondents, as compulsory heirs, challenge the will’s dispositions as intrinsically void and press for intestate distribution.
Key Dates
• 1969 – Death of Aniceta Reyes
• 1977 – Death of Alejandro Dorotheo; petitioner initiates probate of his will
• 1981 – Trial court admits will to probate (no appeal by respondents)
• 1983 – Respondents move to declare will intrinsically void
• January 30, 1986 – Trial court declares will intrinsically void, names respondents as sole heirs, orders intestate distribution
• February 3, 1989 – Court of Appeals dismisses petitioner’s appeal for failure to prosecute; becomes final
• May 16, 1989 – Entry of judgment by Court of Appeals
• November 29, 1990 – Trial court erroneously sets aside January 30, 1986 order as interlocutory
• February 1, 1991 – Denial of respondents’ motion for reconsideration of the November 1990 order
• December 8, 1999 – Supreme Court decision affirming finality of the 1986 order
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date post-1990)
• Civil Code provisions on wills and succession (Articles 796–798, 886, 904, 960)
• Rules of Court, Rule 50 § 1(f) (dismissal for failure to file brief), Rule 75 (probate), Rule 65 (certiorari)
• Principles of finality of judgments, res judicata, and intestate succession
Issue
Whether a last will and testament, once admitted to probate but later declared intrinsically void in an order that has become final and executory, retains any effect.
Procedural History
- Trial court admits Alejandro’s will to probate (1981); no appeal by heirs on extrinsic validity.
- Respondents successfully move to declare will intrinsically void (1983), resulting in an order (January 30, 1986) that:
– Declares petitioner not Alejandro’s lawful wife
– Declares will provisions intrinsically void
– Declares respondents as only heirs
– Orders liquidation and intestate distribution of estates - Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration denied; appeal to Court of Appeals dismissed for failure to file brief (February 3, 1989; final).
- Lower court issues writ of execution; respondents seek turnover of titles; petitioner resists.
- Trial court improperly sets aside the January 1986 order as interlocutory (November 29, 1990); reconsideration denied (February 1, 1991).
- Court of Appeals nullifies the two 1990–1991 orders; petitioner files for certiorari, challenging jurisdiction and validity of final January 30, 1986 order.
Analysis
- Finality and Hierarchy of Courts
– A final and executory court order, however erroneous, cannot be disturbed by a lower court or reopened.
– The January 30, 1986 order became final through lapse of the appeal period and the dismissal of petitioner’s appeal. - Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Validity in Probate
– Extrinsic validity (due execution, formalities, testamentary capacity) is conclusively determined by probate admission.
– Intrinsic validity (lawfulness of dispositions, compliance with legitime rules) remains open to challenge post-admission.
– The trial court’s binding determination of intrinsic invalidity bars further contestation by the same parties (res judicata). - Application of Intestate Succession
– A will declared intrinsically void treats the testator as dying intestate for the void provisions.
–
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 108581)
Facts
- Private respondents (Vicente Dorotheo, Jose Dorotheo, and their sister Nilda D. Quintana as attorney-in-fact) are the legitimate children of Alejandro Dorotheo and Aniceta Reyes.
- Aniceta Reyes died in 1969 without settling her estate; Alejandro Dorotheo died thereafter.
- In 1977, petitioner Lourdes L. Dorotheo—who claimed to have cared for Alejandro before his death—filed a special proceeding for the probate of Alejandro’s last will and testament.
- In 1981, the trial court issued an order admitting Alejandro’s will to probate; private respondents did not appeal.
Initial Probate and Intrinsic-Void Proceedings
- In 1983, private respondents filed a “Motion To Declare The Will Intrinsically Void.”
- On January 30, 1986, the trial court granted the motion, declaring:
- Lourdes L. Dorotheo was not the wife of the late Alejandro Dorotheo.
- The provisions of Alejandro’s will were intrinsically void.
- Vicente, Jose, and Nilda (for herself and as attorney-in-fact) were the only heirs of both spouses, with their estates to be liquidated and distributed by the laws on intestacy upon payment of taxes.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
Appeal and Dismissal
- Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals but failed to file her appellant’s brief within the extended period.
- On January 11, 1989, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal under Section 1(f), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.
- The dismissal became final and executory on February 3, 1989; entry of judgment was made on May 16, 1989.
- A writ of execution issued; private respondents moved to compel surrender of Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) and sought cancellation and reissuance in their names.
Lower Court’s Subsequent Orders
- On November 29, 1990, Judge Zain B. Angas set aside the January 30, 1986 Order and the writ of execution, ruling the 1986 Order was interlocutory and