G.R. No. 53546 - Heirs of Fran vs. Salas

Case Summary (G.R. No. 53546)

Key Dates and Applicable Law

The dispute revolves around probate proceedings initiated in 1972 before the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Cebu. The challenged orders were issued in 1980. The applicable law is the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which governs judicial jurisdiction, finality of judgments, and due process of law, as the case decision was rendered in 1992.

Factual Background on Probate Proceedings

Remedios Mejia died on July 10, 1972, leaving properties across several cities but no descendants or ascendants. She executed a last will and testament on April 23, 1972, bequeathing all her properties to collateral relatives and appointing Rosario Tan or, alternatively, Jesus Fran as executor without bond. Jesus Fran filed a petition for probate in July 1972. The initial hearing was uncontested after the private respondents—sisters of the deceased—filed a withdrawal of opposition, expressly stating no objection to the will’s allowance or the issuance of letters testamentary to Jesus Fran.

Initial Court Proceedings and Final Judgment

Judge Antonio D. Cinco presided and authorized the clerk of court to receive evidence. The will and its English translation, the attending witnesses, including one of the subscribing witnesses and the petitioner himself, were presented. On November 13, 1972, the court admitted the will to probate and appointed Jesus Fran executor, issuing letters testamentary. The notice to creditors expired without claims, and an inventory and project of partition were filed and approved, with certifications of conformity from most heirs, including some private respondents. The court declared the proceedings closed in September 1973.

Subsequent Proceedings and Reassignment of Court Branch

The original Branch VIII was converted to a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, and a new Branch VIII was established with respondent Judge Bernardo Ll. Salas presiding. In October 1979, private respondents filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration with opposition to the will’s allowance, alleging non-receipt of the will, forgery of the signature, lack of notice of probate procedures, and procedural irregularities including unauthorized evidence reception by the clerk of court. Petitioner Fran opposed these motions, asserting estoppel due to prior withdrawal of opposition, existence of necessary evidence, distribution of properties, and involvement of private respondents’ heirs in property transactions.

Respondent Judge's Actions and Petitioners’ Legal Challenge

Despite opposition, respondent Judge Salas set the Omnibus Motion for hearing in 1980, denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss, and proceeded to hear testimonies including those of a handwriting expert alleging forgery. On June 2, 1980, before the Court’s restraining order was served, the respondent judge declared the will a forgery, nullified testamentary dispositions, revoked Jesus Fran’s executor appointment, and converted the proceedings to intestate administration. Petitioners filed certiorari to annul these orders for lack of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.

Issues Raised by Private Respondents

Private respondents argued that the probate court never acquired jurisdiction due to failure to submit the original will in the petition; they claimed deprivation of opportunity to examine the will, procedural irregularities concerning reception of evidence by the clerk, alleged fraud in procurement of signatures on partition documents, and undervaluation of the estate. They also contended non-distribution of the estate justified reopening of proceedings.

Judicial Analysis on Jurisdiction and Procedure

The Court held that respondent Judge Salas gravely abused discretion when he reopened and nullified the probate judgment. It emphasized that private respondents had expressly withdrawn opposition during the initial uncontested proceedings and had actual knowledge of the probate decision insofar as demonstrated by their certifications approving the Project of Partition. Furthermore, the reception of evidence by the clerk of court was valid under established jurisprudence at the time, namely Laluan v. Malpaya and Gochangco v. Court of First Instance, which recognized delegation of such ministerial tasks and limited application of Lim Tanhu v. Ramolete. The Court clarified that the clerk of court was not acting as a commissioner under Rule 33, thus raising no procedural defect requiring nullification.

Jurisprudence on Will Submission and Acceptance by Court

The Court reiterated prior rulings (Santos v. Castillo, Salazar v. Court of First Instance of Laguna) that attaching the original will to the probate petition is not a strict jurisdictional requirement. Section 1, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court permits probate petitions even in instances where the original will is lost, destroyed, or out of the petitioner’s possession. Evidence showed the original will was presented at trial and marked as exhibit, thereby sufficing for jurisdictional purposes.

On Claims of Fraud and Waiver of Opposition

The claim that petitioners fraudulently induced the private respondents to withdraw opposition by promising to show the will lacked merit. The Court found that fraud sufficient to annul a judgment must be extrinsic and collateral. Here, any alleged non-fulfillment of promises was intrinsic to the proceedings and did not justify reopening or relief from judgment. The private respondents’ long delay in challenging the judgment and their active participation through certifications estopped them from attacking the process at this late stage.

Finality of Judgment and Public Policy on Stability of Decisions

The Court underscored the doctrine that final judgments, especially probate decisions, are conclusive and entitled to respect to maintain judicial stability, public confidence, and order. The proba

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 53546)

Facts of the Case

Remedios M. Vda. de Tiosejo, a widow without descendants or ascendants, died on July 10, 1972, leaving real and personal properties in Cebu, Ormoc City, and Puerto Bello, Merida, Leyte.
She executed a last will and testament on April 23, 1972, bequeathing her properties to collateral relatives and appointing Rosario Tan or, upon her death, Jesus Fran as executor without bond.
Jesus Fran filed a petition for probate of the will on July 15, 1972, in the Court of First Instance of Cebu (Branch VIII), presided over by Judge Antonio D. Cinco.
Rosario Tan waived her right as executrix in favor of Jesus Fran.
The private respondents (sisters of the deceased) initially manifested their need to study the petition but later withdrew any opposition on the day of the hearing, expressing no objection to the allowance of the will or the issuance of letters testamentary to Jesus Fran.
Evidence was introduced during the hearing, with the original will and its English translation submitted.
On November 13, 1972, the probated will was admitted, Jesus Fran was appointed executor, and the probate proceedings were closed after approval of the Project of Partition on September 10, 1973.
The Project of Partition was signed by most devisees and legatees, including private respondents, with notices adequately served.
The original Branch VIII converted into Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court; a new Branch VIII was established with respondent Judge Bernardo Ll. Salas presiding.
In October 1979, nearly seven years after final judgment, private respondents filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration requesting to reopen the probate proceedings, alleging forgery, lack of proper notification, non-distribution of estate, and other procedural irregularities.
Petitioner Jesus Fran opposed the motion, asserting estoppel due to the withdrawal of opposition and actual distribution of estate shares.
Respondent Judge granted the motion, set a hearing, and later issued an order annulled the probate judgment, declared the will a forgery, revoked executor’s appointment, and converted the proceedings into intestate.
Petitioners filed certiorari and prohibition to annul the respondent judge’s orders for lack of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.
Petitioner Jesus Fran died during the proceedings, and his heirs substituted him.
An affidavit by respondent Maria M. Vda. de Gandiongco stated she signed the motions without knowledge and recognized the will’s authenticity, later withdrawing opposition.
Respondents contested the affidavit but later Maria Gandiongco affirmed her withdrawal of opposition.

Issues

Whether the respondent judge had jurisdiction or committed grave abuse of discretion in reopening and annulling a final, executed probate judgment nearly seven years after finality.
Whether the absence of original will attachment to the petition for probate constitutes lack of jurisdiction.
Whether the reception of evidence by the Clerk of Court for the probate proceeding was valid or void under prevailing doctrines.
Whether private respondents were estopped from opposing the will due to their withdrawal of opposition and assent to the Project of Partition.
Whether the acts of re