Alban v. Provido
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the probate of the Last Will and Testament of the late Soledad Provido Elevencionado. The respondent, Francisco Provido, filed a petition for the probate of the will, asserting his status as the decedent's heir and executor. The petitioners, claiming to be the decedent's intestate heirs, contested the validity of the will and the probate proceedings, alleging forgery, improper execution, lack of testamentary capacity, duress, and inclusion of properties not belonging to the decedent. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 68, in Janiuay, Iloilo, initially allowed the probate of the will and directed the issuance of letters testamentary to the respondent. The petitioners subsequently filed a motion to reopen the probate proceedings and an opposition to the will's allowance, which the RTC denied, finding the motion unmeritorious and noting that the decision had already become final and executory. The petitioners then filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. The CA dismissed this petition, finding no showing that ordinary remedies were unavailable and that extrinsic fraud was present. The CA subsequently denied their motion for reconsideration. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek review of the CA's resolutions, asserting grave abuse of discretion. They argue that the CA erred in dismissing their petition for annulment of judgment, particularly their claim that they were denied their day in court due to extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. They contend they could not avail of ordinary remedies because they were not properly notified and were misled by the respondent's offer of a compromise. They also argue that the case presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to rule on a case involving Rule 47 of the Rules of Court for the guidance of the bench and bar. The respondent, in turn, argues that the petitioners could have availed of ordinary remedies, that no extrinsic fraud was committed, and that the petitioners are guilty of forum-shopping due to a related pending case.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for annulment of judgment, considering the availability of ordinary remedies. Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the probate proceedings, and whether petitioners, as alleged intestate heirs, were entitled to personal notice of the probate proceedings. Whether the RTC decision was obtained by extrinsic fraud. Whether petitioners were barred from filing a petition for annulment of judgment due to failure to avail of ordinary remedies (addressed in Issue 1). Whether petitioners engaged in forum-shopping.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The RTC acquired jurisdiction over the probate proceedings through publication. Petitioners failed to demonstrate extrinsic fraud and were barred from filing an action for annulment of judgment due to their failure to avail of ordinary remedies. Petitioners were also found to have engaged in forum-shopping.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the RTC and the availability of ordinary remedies: The Court reiterated that a proceeding for the probate of a will is in rem, and jurisdiction is acquired through the publication of the notice of hearing. This publication serves as notice to the whole world, making all interested parties parties to the case. Therefore, petitioners, by virtue of the publication, became parties to the probate proceedings. As parties, they could have availed of ordinary remedies such as a motion for new trial, reconsideration, or a petition for relief from judgment. Petitioners did file a motion to reopen, which is akin to a motion for new trial, but it was filed out of time, long after the decision had become final and executory. Even if they learned of the decision late, they could have still filed a petition for relief from judgment within the prescribed period, but they failed to do so. Their failure to make use of these available remedies without sufficient justification bars them from resorting to a petition for annulment of judgment. The Court emphasized that allowing annulment in such cases would permit parties to benefit from their own inaction or negligence. On the jurisdiction of the RTC and entitlement to personal notice: The Court reiterated that a proceeding for the probate of a will is in rem, and jurisdiction is acquired through the publication of the notice of hearing. This publication serves as notice to the whole world, making all interested parties parties to the case. Therefore, petitioners, by virtue of the publication, became parties to the probate proceedings. As parties, they could have availed of ordinary remedies such as a motion for new trial, reconsideration, or a petition for relief from judgment. Petitioners did file a motion to reopen, which is akin to a motion for new trial, but it was filed out of time, long after the decision had become final and executory. Even if they learned of the decision late, they could have still filed a petition for relief from judgment within the prescribed period, but they failed to do so. Their failure to make use of these available remedies without sufficient justification bars them from resorting to a petition for annulment of judgment. The Court emphasized that allowing annulment in such cases would permit parties to benefit from their own inaction or negligence. On the alleged extrinsic fraud: The Court found no extrinsic fraud. Petitioners claimed that respondent's omission of their names in the petition and failure to personally notify them constituted extrinsic fraud, preventing them from having their day in court. However, the Court noted that the will itself instituted respondent as the sole heir. Petitioners, as nephews and nieces, were neither compulsory nor testate heirs entitled to personal notice under the Rules of Court. Thus, respondent had no legal obligation to mention them or personally notify them. Furthermore, even if they were entitled to personal notice, the publication of the notice of hearing cured any defect, as personal notice is a matter of procedural convenience, not a jurisdictional requisite. The non-inclusion of their names and alleged failure to personally notify them did not constitute extrinsic fraud because they were not prevented from participating in the proceedings and presenting their case before the probate court. On the availability of ordinary remedies: The Court reiterated that a proceeding for the probate of a will is in rem, and jurisdiction is acquired through the publication of the notice of hearing. This publication serves as notice to the whole world, making all interested parties parties to the case. Therefore, petitioners, by virtue of the publication, became parties to the probate proceedings. As parties, they could have availed of ordinary remedies such as a motion for new trial, reconsideration, or a petition for relief from judgment. Petitioners did file a motion to reopen, which is akin to a motion for new trial, but it was filed out of time, long after the decision had become final and executory. Even if they learned of the decision late, they could have still filed a petition for relief from judgment within the prescribed period, but they failed to do so. Their failure to make use of these available remedies without sufficient justification bars them from resorting to a petition for annulment of judgment. The Court emphasized that allowing annulment in such cases would permit parties to benefit from their own inaction or negligence. On forum-shopping: The Court found that petitioners engaged in forum-shopping. They had a pending case before the RTC of General Santos City for letters of administration, claiming the decedent died intestate. This case involved the same parties and the same core issue: the existence and validity of the decedent's will and the state of intestacy. The petition for letters of administration was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and this dismissal was on appeal. The Court highlighted that forum-shopping involves filing multiple suits involving the same parties and issues to secure a favorable disposition. Petitioners' actions in pursuing both the probate proceedings (and later seeking annulment) and the administration proceedings clearly fit this definition. Moreover, petitioners failed to disclose the pendency of the other case in their certification against forum-shopping, which is a violation of procedural rules.
Main Doctrine
Publication of the notice of hearing in a probate proceeding vests the court with jurisdiction over all interested parties, even if they were not personally notified or named in the petition, as the proceeding is in rem. Failure to avail of ordinary remedies like motion for new trial, reconsideration, or petition for relief from judgment, without justifiable cause, bars recourse to an action for annulment of judgment.