Case Summary (G.R. No. 45629)
Petitioner
Atilano G. Mercado, husband of the deceased testatrix, who sought probate of his wife’s will and later defended against repeated criminal charges of forgery.
Respondents
Judge Alfonso Santos and Provincial Fiscal Inigo S. Daza, who presided over probate and criminal proceedings in Pampanga.
Intervenors
Rosario Basa de Leon and four others, claiming an interest in the estate and initiating criminal complaints for forgery of the probated will.
Key Dates
• May 28, 1931: Petition for probate filed.
• June 27, 1931: Will admitted to probate without opposition.
• October 27, 1932 – February 2, 1934: Three separate forgery complaints filed and dismissed.
• May 9, 1934: Provincial fiscal moves for reinvestigation.
• May 23, 1934: Court of First Instance orders reinvestigation and fourth arrest.
• November 25–December 24, 1935: Demurrer and motions overruled.
• June 19, 1937: Court of Appeals denies certiorari, dissolves injunction.
• September 22, 1938: Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
• 1935 Constitution, Article III, Section 1, Paragraph 17 (right to speedy trial)
• Code of Civil Procedure, Section 306 (effect of judgments in rem, including probate)
• Code of Civil Procedure, Section 625 (probate conclusive as to due execution)
• Code of Civil Procedure, Section 333(4) (conclusive presumptions)
Facts
Mercado obtained probate of his wife Ines Basa’s will in June 1931. Intervenors unsuccessfully sought to reopen probate proceedings. Beginning October 1932, intervenor Rosario Basa de Leon filed three separate complaints for falsification of the probated will; each was dismissed after preliminary investigation. In May 1934, the provincial fiscal secured a reinvestigation, resulting in a fourth arrest and protracted proceedings in the Court of First Instance. Mercado’s demurrer—that probate barred criminal prosecution—and subsequent motions were denied. The Court of Appeals refused certiorari relief, leading to this Supreme Court review.
Issues Presented
- Whether probate of a will by a court of competent jurisdiction bars subsequent criminal prosecution for forgery of that will.
- Whether repeated arrests and protracted preliminary investigations violated Mercado’s constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Analysis on Conclusiveness of Probate
Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 625, allowance of a will in probate is “conclusive as to its due execution.” Section 306 states that a judgment in rem on probate is binding on all parties. Section 333(4) deems such judgments conclusive presumption. Philippine jurisprudence and comparative Vermont authority hold that probate, after proper notice, conclusively establishes genuineness of the will and the testator’s sound mind. Although some foreign decisions permit criminal forgery prosecutions despite probate, those arise under statutes unlike ours. The Court finds that the statutory scheme in the Philippines and the need for stability of property rights mandate that a duly probated will cannot be collaterally attacked in criminal proceedings for forgery.
Analysis on Speedy Trial
Article III, Section 1, Paragraph 17 of the 1935 Constitution guarantees an accused’s right to “a speedy . . . trial.” Mercado faced four arrests, each followed by new preliminary investigations and bonds, spanning
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 45629)
Facts
- On May 28, 1931, petitioner Atilano G. Mercado filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pampanga a petition to probate the will of his deceased wife, Ines Basa.
- The will was admitted to probate on June 27, 1931, without opposition; testimony of one attesting witness was heard.
- On April 11, 1934, five intervenors moved ex parte to reopen and close the probate proceedings, alleging lack of jurisdiction; motion denied.
- A second motion with notice was denied on May 24, 1934; denial affirmed by this Court on July 26, 1935.
- Intervenor Rosario Basa de Leon filed three consecutive complaints (Oct 27, 1932; Mar 2, 1933; Feb 2, 1934) in justice of the peace courts, each charging Mercado with forging the will; each was dismissed—two at the complainant’s instance, one for lack of evidence.
- Provincial fiscal secured a fourth investigation and arrest on May 23, 1934; proceedings dragged until trial was ordered on February 18, 1935.
- Petitioner filed a demurrer (Nov 25, 1935) on the ground that the will had already been probated; overruled Dec 24, 1935; motion for reconsideration and notice of appeal denied Jan 14, 1936.
- Petitioner sought certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals to enjoin the trial court; injunction issued but dissolved and petition denied on June 19, 1937, over three dissenting votes.
- The case reaches the Supreme Court on certiorari, posing two issues: (1) whether probate of the will bars criminal prosecution for alleged forgery; and (2) whether petitioner’s right to a speedy trial was violated.
Procedural History
- June 27, 1931: Probate of will granted by CFI of Pampanga.
- April–May 1934: Two motions by intervenors to reopen probate denied by trial court and on appeal.
- Oct 27, 1932–Apr 27, 1933: Three separate complaints before JPs; all dismissed.
- Feb 2, 1934: Third information filed by provincial fiscal; dismissed on April 24, 1934.
- May 9–23, 1934: Motion for reinvestigation granted; fourth arrest.
- Feb 18, 1935: CFI orders trial on merits.
- Nov 25–Dec 24, 1935: Demurrer overruled; mo