Basa v. Mercado
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the probate of the last will and testament of the deceased Ines Basa. Following the allowance and probate of the will, the administrator of the estate was declared the sole heir, and the administration proceedings were closed. 2. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Pampanga allowed and probated the will on June 27, 1931. Subsequently, on January 30, 1932, the court approved the administrator's account, declared him the sole heir, and closed the estate proceedings. On April 11, 1934, the petitioners-appellants filed a motion to reopen these proceedings. 3. The Petition: The petitioners-appellants seek to reopen the estate proceedings, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction due to non-compliance with Section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the publication of the notice of hearing. They contend that the notice was not published for three full weeks prior to the hearing. Additionally, they challenge the trial court's finding that the newspaper Ing Katipunan is of general circulation in the Province of Pampanga.
Issue(s)
Whether the publication of the notice of hearing for the probate of a will complied with Section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Whether the newspaper Ing Katipunan is a newspaper of general circulation in the Province of Pampanga.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court, holding that the publication requirements were met and that Ing Katipunan is a newspaper of general circulation. The administration proceedings were not reopened.
Ratio Decidendi
On the compliance with Section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The Court held that the phrase "three weeks successively" does not mandate that the first publication must occur twenty-one full days before the hearing. Citing jurisprudence from Vermont, from which the provision was derived, the Court noted that a similar publication schedule was deemed sufficient. In the cited Vermont case, the last publication was on December 18, 1919, and the hearing was set for December 19, 1919, only fifteen days after the first publication. The Court reasoned that the intent of the law is to give public notice, and the successive publication in three issues of a newspaper of general circulation prior to the hearing fulfills this purpose. Therefore, the twenty-one-day requirement is not absolute, and the publication in Ing Katipunan on June 6, June 20, and the hearing on June 27, 1931, satisfied the statutory requirement. On whether Ing Katipunan is a newspaper of general circulation: The Court found that Ing Katipunan qualified as a newspaper of general circulation. The record indicated that it was published for the dissemination of local news and general information, had a bona fide list of paying subscribers, and was published at regular intervals. The trial court's order for publication in this newspaper was based on its finding that it was of general circulation in Pampanga. The Court further noted that no evidence was presented to show that the newspaper was devoted to the interests of a particular class or group. The existence of another newspaper with a slightly larger circulation or the circulation of Manila dailies in Pampanga was deemed unimportant, as the law does not require publication in the newspaper with the largest circulation to constitute one of general circulation.
Main Doctrine
The phrase "three weeks successively" in Section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not require that the first publication of the notice of hearing for the probate of a will be made twenty-one full days before the date set for the hearing. Compliance is satisfied if the notice is published in three successive issues of a newspaper of general circulation prior to the hearing.