12. CYNTHIA C. ALABAN, et al. Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FRANCISCO H. PROVIDO, Respondents. [G.R. No. 156021, September 23, 2005, TINGA, J.:] FACTS: 1. respondent respondent Francisco Francisco Provido Provido filed a petition petition for the the probate probate of the Last Will and Testamen Testamentt of the late Soledad Provido Elevencionado a. ALLEGATION ALLEGATION:: he was the the heir of the deceden decedentt and the executor executor of her her will. b. RTC’s RULING RULING:: allowed allowed the probate probate of the will will and directed directed the the issuance issuance of letters letters testament testamentary ary to respondent 2. Petitioners Petitioners after after 4 months months filed filed a motion for for the reopening reopening of the the probate probate proceedings proceedings a. CLAIMs: 1) they they are are the the intest intestate ate heirs heirs of of the the decede decedent. nt. 2) RTC did did not acquir acquire e jurisdict jurisdiction ion over over the petition petition due due to non-paym non-payment ent of the correct correct docket fees, defective publication, and lack of notice to the other heirs. 3) will will could could not have have been been probat probated ed becaus because: e: a) the sign signatu ature re of the the decede decedent nt was was forged forged;; b) the will will was not execut executed ed in accorda accordance nce with with law, that is, is, the witness witnesses es failed failed to to sign below the attestation clause; c) the decedent decedent lacked lacked testam testamentar entary y capacity capacity to execut execute e and publish publish a will; will; d) the will will was was executed executed by force force and under under duress duress and and improper improper pressu pressure; re; e) the decedent decedent had had no intention intention to to make a will will at the the time time of affixing affixing of of her signature; and f) she did did not know know the the propertie properties s to be disposed disposed of, of, having having included included in the will will properties which no longer belonged to her. b. RTC’ RTC’s s Ruli Ruling ng:: deni denied ed mot motion ion 1) petitioners petitioners were were deemed notifie notified d of the hearing hearing by publication publication and that the the deficiency deficiency in the payment of docket fees is not a ground for the outright dismissal of the petition. 2) RTC’s Decision was already final and executory even before petitioners’ filing of the motion to reopen 3. Petitioners Petitioners filed a petition petition to annule annule RTC’s decision decision a. CLAIM: CLAIM: there was a comprom compromise ise agreement agreement between between petitioner petitioners s and respondents respondents and they they learnt the probate proceeding only in July 2001 b. CA’s CA’s RULI RULING: NG: petiti petition on dism dismiss issed ed 1) no showing showing that petitio petitioners ners failed failed to avail avail of or resort resort to the ordinar ordinary y remedies remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment, or other appropriate remedies through no fault of their own ISSUE: W/N the allowance of the will to probate should be annulled for failure to mention the petitioners as parties HELD: No 1. Probat Probate e of a will will is con consid sidere ered d action action in in rem a. Under the Rules of Court, any executor, devisee, or legatee named in a will, or any other person interested in the estate may, at any time after the death of the testator, petition the court having jurisdiction to have the will allowed.[36] Notice of the time and place for proving the will must be published for three (3) consecutive weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation in the province, [37] as well as furnished to the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator b. Petitione Petitioners rs became became parties parties due to the publicati publication on of the the notice notice of hearing hearing 2. The filing filing of motion motion to reopen reopen is similar similar to a motion motion for new trial trial a. The ruling ruling became became final final and executor executor becaus because e the motion motion was was filed out out of time time b. Given that that they knew knew of the decisio decision n 4 months after after they they could have have filed a petitio petition n for relief relief from judgment after the denial of their motion to reopen. 3. petition petition for annulment annulment of judgment judgment must must still fail fail for failure failure to comply with with the substantive substantive requisit requisites, es, a. An action action for annulmen annulmentt of judgment judgment is a remedy remedy in law independe independent nt of the case case where the the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered b. PURPOSE: PURPOSE: to have have the final final and executory executory judgmen judgmentt set aside aside so that there there will be be a renewal renewal of litigation.
c. 2 Grounds: extrinsic fraud, and lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process d. An action to annul a final judgment on the ground of fraud lies only if the fraud is extrinsic or collateral in character i. Extrinsic if it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured. 4. notice is required to be personally given to known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator a. the will states that the respondent was instituted as the sole heir of the decedent thus he has no legal obligation to mention petitioners in the petition for probate or personally notify them