ALABAN v.

CA

G.R. No. 156021 September 23, 2005

J. TINGA

TOPIC: Settlement by Judicial Administration is an Action in rem

DOCTRINE: A proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem, such that with the corresponding
publication of the petition the court's jurisdiction extends to all persons interested in said will or in the
settlement of the estate of the decedent.

FACTS:

• Respondent Francisco Provido filed a Petition for the probate of the Last Will and Testament of
the late Soledad Provido Elevencionado alleging that he was the heir of the decedent and the executor of
her will.

• RTC: allowed the probate of the will and directed the issuance of letters testamentary to
respondent

• Petitioners after 4 months filed a motion for the reopening of the probate proceedings

CONTENTIONS:

• they are the intestate heirs of the decedent.

• RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition due to non-payment of the correct docket fees,
defective publication, and lack of notice to the other heirs.

• will could not have been probated because:

• the signature of the decedent was forged;

• the will was not executed in accordance with law, that is, the witnesses failed to sign below the
attestation clause;

• the decedent lacked testamentary capacity to execute and publish a will;

• the will was executed by force and under duress and improper pressure;

• the decedent had no intention to make a will at the time of affixing of her signature; and

• she did not know the properties to be disposed of, having included in the will properties which no
longer belonged to her.

• RTC: denied motion. Petitioners were deemed notified of the hearing by publication and that the
deficiency in the payment of docket fees is not a ground for the outright dismissal of the petition. RTC’s
Decision was already final and executory even before petitioners’ filing of the motion to reopen
• Petitioners filed a petition to annul RTC’s decision

• They alleged that there was a compromise agreement between petitioners and respondents and
they learnt the probate proceeding only in July 2001.

• CA: petition dismissed. It found that there was no showing that petitioners failed to avail of or
resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment, or other
appropriate remedies through no fault of their own.

ISSUE: Whether or not the allowance of the will to probate should be annulled for failure to mention the
petitioners as parties

HELD: NO . Probate of a will is considered action in rem

• 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. 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, as well as furnished
to the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator.

• Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely
all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established.

• It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests
the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.

• Thus, even though petitioners were not mentioned in the petition for probate, they eventually
became parties thereto as a consequence of the publication of the notice of hearing.

• As parties to the probate proceedings, petitioners could have validly availed of the remedies of
motion for new trial or reconsideration and petition for relief from judgment.

• In fact, petitioners filed a motion to reopen, which is essentially a motion for new trial, with
petitioners praying for the reopening of the case and the setting of further proceedings. However, the
motion was denied for having been filed out of time, long after the Decision became final and executory.

• Conceding that petitioners became aware of the Decision after it had become final, they could
have still filed a petition for relief from judgment after the denial of their motion to reopen. Petitioners
claim that they learned of the Decision only on 4 October 2001, or almost four (4) months from the time
the Decision had attained finality. But they failed to avail of the remedy.

• For failure to make use without sufficient justification of the said remedies available to them,
petitioners could no longer resort to a petition for annulment of judgment; otherwise, they would benefit
from their own inaction or negligence.
• Petition for annulment of judgment must still fail for failure to comply with the substantive
requisites.

• An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case where the
judgment sought to be annulled was rendered.

• Its purpose is to have the final and executory judgment set aside so that there will be a renewal
of litigation.

• 2 Grounds: extrinsic fraud, and lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process

• An action to annul a final judgment on the ground of fraud lies only if the fraud is extrinsic or
collateral in character.

• 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.

• Notice is required to be personally given to known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator.

• In the present case, to sustain their allegation of extrinsic fraud, petitioners assert that as a result
of respondent’s deliberate omission or concealment of their names, ages and residences as the other
heirs of the decedent in his petition for allowance of the will, they were not notified of the proceedings,
and thus they were denied their day in court. In addition, they claim that respondent’s offer of a false
compromise even before the filing of the petition prevented them from appearing and opposing the
petition for probate.

• The Court is not convinced. According to the Rules, notice is required to be personally given to
known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator. A perusal of the will shows that respondent was
instituted as the sole heir of the decedent.

• Petitioners, as nephews and nieces of the decedent, are neither compulsory nor testate heirs who
are entitled to be notified of the probate proceedings under the Rules. Respondent had no legal obligation
to mention petitioners in the petition for probate, or to personally notify them of the same.

• Besides, assuming arguendo that petitioners are entitled to be so notified, the purported infirmity
is cured by the publication of the notice. After all, personal notice upon the heirs is a matter of procedural
convenience and not a jurisdictional requisite.

• The non-inclusion of petitioners’ names in the petition and alleged failure to personally notify
them of the proceedings do not constitute extrinsic fraud.

• 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.