Gallanosa v Arcangel081 GR No. L-29300, 21 June 1978, Aquino, J. Digested by Dean Lozarie • Law 105 – Succession Topic: Dis/allowance of wills The testator's nephews and nieces mounted an unsuccessful opposition to the probate of the will. After the decree of probate was issued, they twice sued to have the will "annulled," arguing that the will was procured through deceit. The SC said they have no cause of action. The decree of probate is conclusive as to the due execution and formal validity of a will.
FACTS Decedent and testator: Florentino Hitosis, died 26 May 1939 ! ! Florentino, a childless widower, had, as his h is only heir, his brother Leon In his will, he left his half-share to his wife, Tecla; and if she predeceased him (as she ! did), the share would be assigned to the spouses Pedro Gallanosa and Corazon Grecia, because Pedro, Florentino’s stepson, had grown up under his care. He also left his separate properties, consisiting of three parcels of abaca land and one ! parcel of Riceland, to Adolfo Fortajada, a minor. ! 1939 Jun: A petition for probate of the will was filed in the CFI Sorsogon. The notice of hearing was duly published. Leon and Florentino’s nephews and nieces opposed the probate. After a hearing, where ! the oppositors did not present evidence, the will was admitted to probate in Oct 1939 and Gallanosa was appointed executor. The judge found that the will was executed while the testator had “good health and mental faculties and not acting under threat, fraud or undue influence.” ! 1941 Oct: The Gallanosa spouses and Fortajada submitted a project of partition, which was approved by the court. The legal heirs did not appeal from the decree of probate or the order of partition and distribution. ! 1952 Feb: Leon and Florentino’s siblings’ heirs sued Gallanosa for the recovery of the parcels of land, alleging continuous possession in the concept of owners, and that Gallanosa entered the lands in 1951 and asserted ownership thereon. This was dismissed in Aug 1952 on res judicata —they had opposed the probate of the will distributing the properties but lost. From this order of dismissal dismissal they did not appeal. BUT in Sep 1967, they sued again, in the same court, to have Florentino’s will annulled ! and recover the properties. The basis of their complaint: the Gallanosa spouses caused the execution and simulation of the purported Last Will through fraud and deceit. This time, they said that the Gallanosas occupied the properties since Florentino’s death in 1939. ! The judge dismissed the action, but, on MR, reversed, citing Art. 1410 (the action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe) applies to wills. ISSUES & HOLDING
!
Do the private respondents have a cause of action to “annul” Florentino’s will and recover the properties? – NO.
RATIO Conclusiveness of probate decree ! What the plaintiffs seek is the “annulment” of a will duly probated in 1939 by that same court. ! It is clear the last action is barred by res judicata and by prescription. ! Our procedural laws do not sanction an action for “annulment” of a will. The defense of res judicata against the 1967 complaint is two-pronged because there are ! two bars by former judgment: the first, the decrees of probate and distribution in the special proceeding, and the second, the dismissal of the 1952 action. The 1939 decree of probate is conclusive as to the due execution or formal validity of the ! will. That means that: o The testator was of sound and disposing mind when he executed the will o He was not acting under duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence o He signed the will in the presence of the required number of witnesses o The Will is genuine These facts cannot be again questioned in a subsequent proceeding, not even in a criminal ! action for forgery of the will. ! The decree of adjudication rendered in the testate proceedings, having been rendered in a proceeding in rem, is binding upon the whole world. ! Meanwhile, the 1952 order of dismissal, a judgment in personam and an adjudication on the merits, is binding upon private respondents. Art. 1410 cannot possibly apply to last wills and testaments. !
DISPOSITIVE Disposition of the case
