Spec Pro Class 2020

FACTS:
On 8 November 2000, respondent Francisco Provido filed a petition for the probate of the Last Will and Testament of the late Soledad Provido Elevencionado who died on 26 October 2000 in Janiuay, Iloilo. Respondent alleged that he was the heir of the decedent and the executor of her will. So the court allowed and directed the issuance of letter testamentary to the respondent.

 

After 4 months petitioners file a petition for reopening the probate claiming that they are the intestate heir of the decedent and that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the case due to non payment of docket fees, defective publication and lack of notice to the other heirs. Also they argue that the probate of the will could not have been probated because the signature in the will 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. Petitioners prayed that the letters testamentary issued to respondent be withdrawn and the estate of the decedent disposed of under intestate succession.
 

The RTC denied the petition and ordered it to be unmeritorious, it held that the petitioners were deemed notified by publication and on the issue of non payment of docket fees the RTC said that said issue is not a ground for a probate to be voided. Moreover, the RTC’s Decision was already final and executory even before petitioners’ filing of the motion to reopen.

 

The petitioners went to the CA and prayed that the decision of the RTC be annulled alleging that there is an extrinsic fraud. The respondent and them had an agreement about the partition of the estate to which the respondent agreed to receive 1/6 of the estate as his part but then he (the respondent) did not sign the documents for the partition and return it to them. The CA dismissed the petition. 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.

The petitioners seeks the SC to resolve the issue contending that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
The respondent filed a charge against the petitioners for forum shopping because it was revealed that the petitioners filed a petition for letters of administration in General Santos City.

The petitioners maintain that they were not made a party to the proceedings of the probate.

​

ISSUE:

Whether or not the probate of the will should be annulled on the ground that the petitioners were not made a party.

 

HELD:
No. The petitioners are mistaken in asserting that they are not or have not become parties to the probate proceedings. In a petition notice of the time and place of proving of the will must be published for 3 consecutive weeks in a newspaper in general circulation in the province, as well as furnished to the other known heirs, legatees and devisees of the testator. Thus, it has been held that 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. Petitioners became parties because of the publication of the notice of hearing.

The probate should not be annulled because the decision of the court for probate was final and executor before the petition which render it filed out of time and that the filing of petition to reopen is similar as filing for new trial.