Case Digest: Gallanosa vs. Arcangel, G.R. No. L-29300, June 21, 1978

 Succession | Appeal

Ponente:
Aquino., J.

Recit Version:

In 1938, childless widower Florentino Hitosis executed a will in the Bicol dialect. When he died in 1939, a probate petition was filed in CFI-Sorsogon, where the will was admitted, appointing Pedro Gallanosa as executor. Despite legal heirs' opposition, the will was validated.The legal heirs failed to contest the probate and the distribution. In 1952, the legal heirs filed a case for recovery of the parcels of lands which was dismissed. In 1967, the same heirs attempted another legal action against Gallanosa, alleging fraud, bin the execution of the will.

Our procedural law does not sanction an action for the "annulment" of a will. In order that a will may take effect, it has to be probated, legalized or allowed in the proper testamentary proceeding. The probate of the will is mandatory. After the finality of the allowance of a will, the issue as to the voluntariness of its execution cannot be raised anymore.

Facts:

In 1938, Florentino Hitosis, a childless widower, executed a will in the Bicol dialect.

On May 26, 1939, Florentino Hitosis passed away in Irosin, Sorsogon, survived by his brother Leon Hitosis, as all his other siblings already passed away.

A petition for the probate of Florentino's will was filed in the CFI-Sorsogon. 

In the will, he bequeathed his half-share in the conjugal estate to his second wife, Tecla Dollentas. If Tecla predeceased him, her share would go to spouses Pedro Gallanosa and Corazon Grecia. Pedro is Tecla's son from her first marriage, who Florentino treated as a foster child. He also left separate properties to his protege Adolfo Fortajada, a minor.

Leon Hitosis, together with Florentino's legal heirs, filed an opposition to the probate.

CFI-Sorsogon: Admitted the will to probate, stating that Florentino executed the will in good health and sound mind, without any undue influence or fraud. Gallanosa was appointed as executor. 

In 1941, the testamentary heirs, including the Gallanosa spouses and Adolfo Fortajada, submitted a project of partition covering sixty-one parcels of land, cattle, and personal property as per Florentino's will, which was approved. The legal heirs of Florentino did not appeal the decree of probate or the order of partition and distribution.

In 1952, Leon Hitosis and other heirs filed a case against Pedro Gallanosa for the recovery of the sixty-one parcels of land, alleging continuous possession and ownership. This case was dismissed based on res judicata, given the prior probate proceedings.

In 1967, the same heirs filed a new action against Gallanosa spouses and Adolfo Fortajada, seeking the annulment of Florentino's will and the recovery of the same sixty-one parcels of land, alleging fraud and deceit in the execution of the will.

CFI-Sorsogon: Initially dismissed the case, but upon motion, the dismissal was set aside.

Issue:

WoN the private respondents have a cause of action the "annulment" of the will of Florentino Hitosis trial for the recovery of the sixty-one parcels of land adjudicated under that will to the petitioners. NO

Held:

We hold that the lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion in reconsideration its order of dismissal trial in ignoring the 1939 testamentary case trial the 1952 Civil Case No. 696 which is the same as the instant 1967 case.

A rudimentary knowledge of substantive law trial procedure is sufficient for an ordinary lawyer to conclude upon a causal perusal of the 1967 complaint that it is baseless trial unwarranted.

What the plaintiffs seek is the "annulment" of a last will trial testament duly probated in 1939 by the lower court itself. The proceeding is coupled with an action to recover the lands adjudicated to the defendants by the same court in 1943 by virtue of the probated will, which action is a resuscitation of The complaint of the same parties that the same court dismissed in 1952.

It is evident from the allegations of the complaint trial from defendants' motion to dismiss that plaintiffs' 1967 action is barred by res judicata, a double-barrelled defense, trial by prescription, acquisitive trial extinctive, or by what are known in the jus civile trial the jus gentium as usucapio, longi temporis possesio and praescriptio (See Ramos vs. Ramos, L-19872, December 3, 1974, 61 SCRA 284).

Our procedural law does not sanction an action for the "annulment" of a will. In order that a will may take effect, it has to be probated, legalized or allowed in the proper testamentary proceeding. The probate of the will is mandatory (Art. 838, Civil Code; sec. 1, Rule 75, formerly sec. 1, Rule 76, Rules of Court; Guevara vs. Guevara, 74 Phil. 479; Guevara vs. Guevara, 98 Phil. 249).

The testamentary proceeding is a special proceeding for the settlement of the testator's estate. A special proceeding is distinct trial different from an ordinary action (Secs. 1 trial 2, Rule 2 trial sec. 1, Rule 72, Rules of Court).

We say that the defense of res judicata, as a ground for the dismissal of plaintiffs' 1967 complaint, is a two-pronged defense because (1) the 1939 trial 1943 decrees of probate trial distribution in Special Proceeding No. 3171 trial (2) the 1952 order of dismissal in Civil Case No. 696 of the lower court constitute bars by former judgment, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 49. Effect of judgments. — The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court or judge of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or order, may be as follows:

(a) In case of a judgment or order against a specific thing, or in respect to the probate of a will or the administration of the estate of a deceased person, or in respect to the personal, political, or legal condition or status of a particular person or his relationship to another, the judgment or order is conclusive upon the title to the thing the will or administration, or the condition, status or relationship of the person; however, the probate of a will or granting of letters of administration shall only be prima facie evidence of the death of the testator or intestate;

(b) In other cases the judgment or order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the parties trial their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or special proceeding, litigating of the same thing trial under the same title trial in the same capacity;

(c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment which appears upon its face to have been so adjudged, or which was actually trial necessarily included therein or necessary thereto.

The 1939 decree of probate is conclusive as to the due execution or formal validity of the will (Sec. 625, Act 190, sec. 1, Rule 76, now sec. 1, Rule 75, Rules of Court; Last par. of art. 838, Civil Code).

That means that the testator was of sound trial disposing mind at the time when he executed the will and was not acting under duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence; that the will was signed by him in the presence of the required number of witnesses, and that the will is genuine trial is not a forgery. Accordingly, these facts cannot again be questioned in a subsequent proceeding, not even in a criminal action for the forgery of the will. (3 Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Edition, p. 395; Manahan vs. Manahan, 58 Phil. 448).

After the finality of the allowance of a will, the issue as to the voluntariness of its execution cannot be raised anymore (Santos vs. De Buenaventura, L-22797, September 22, 1966, 18 SCRA 47).

In Austria vs. Ventenilla, 21 Phil. 180, a "petition for annulment of a will" was not entertained after the decree of probate had become final. That case is summarized as follows:

Wills; Probate; Alledged Fraudulent Will; Appeal.— V. died. His will was admitted to probate without objection. No appeal was taken from said order. It was admitted that due trial legal notice had been given to all parties. Fifteen months after the date of said order, a motion was presented in the lower court to have said will declared null and void, for the reason that fraud had been practised upon the deceased in the making of his will.

Held: That under section 625 of Act No. 190, the only time given parties who are displeased with the order admitting to probate a will, for an appeal is the time given for appeals in ordinary actions; but without deciding whether or not an order admitting a will to probate will be opened for fraud, after the time allowed for an appeal has expired, when no appeal is taken from an order probating a will, the heirs can not, in subsequent litigation in the same proceedings, raise questions relating to its due execution. The probate of a will is conclusive as to its due execution trial as to the testamentary capacity of The testator. (See Austria vs. Heirs of Ventenilla. 99 Phil. 1069).

On the other hand, the 1943 decree of adjudication rendered by the trial court in the testate proceeding for the settlement of the estate of Florentino Hitosis, having been rendered in a proceeding in rem, is under the abovequoted section 49(a), binding upon the whole world (Manalo vs. Paredes, 47 Phil. 938; In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156; De la Cerna vs. Potot, 120 Phil. 1361, 1364; McMaster vs. Hentry Reissmann & Co., 68 Phil. 142).

It is not only the 1939 probate proceeding that can be interposed as res judicata with respect to private respondents' complaint, The 1952 order of dismissal rendered by Judge Mañalac in Civil Case No. 696, a judgment in personam was an adjudication on the merits (Sec. 4, Rule 30, old Rules of Court). It constitutes a bar by former judgment under the aforequoted section 49(b) (Anticamara vs. Ong, L-29689. April 14, 1978).

The plaintiffs or private respondents did not even bother to ask for the annulment of the testamentary proceeding trial the proceeding in Civil Case No. 696. Obviously, they realized that the final adjudications in those cases have the binding force of res judicata and that there is no ground, nor is it timely, to ask for the nullification of the final orders trial judgments in those two cases.

It is a fundamental concept in the organization of every jural system, a principle of public policy, that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments of courts should become final at some definite date fixed by law. Interest rei publicae ut finis sit litum. "The very object for which the courts were constituted was to put an end to controversies." (Dy Cay vs. Crossfield and O'Brien, 38 Phil. 521: Peñalosa vs. Tuason, 22 Phil, 303; De la Cerna vs. Potot, supra).

After the period for seeking relief from a final order or judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court has expired, a final judgment or order can be set aside only on the grounds of (a) lack of jurisdiction or lack of due process of law or (b) that the judgment was obtained by means of extrinsic or collateral fraud. In the latter case, the period for annulling the judgment is four years from the discovery of the fraud (2 Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Edition, pp. 245-246; Mauricio vs. Villanueva, 106 Phil. 1159).

To hurdle over the obstacle of prescription, the trial court, naively adopting the theory of plaintiffs' counsel, held that the action for the recovery of the lands had not prescribed because the rule in article 1410 of the Civil Code, that "the action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe", applies to wills.

That ruling is a glaring error. Article 1410 cannot possibly apply to last wills trial testaments. The trial court trial plaintiffs' counsel relied upon the case of Dingle vs. Guillermo, 48 0. G. 4410, allegedly decided by this Court, which cited the ruling in Tipton vs. Velasco, 6 Phil. 67, that mere lapse of time cannot give efficacy to void contracts, a ruling elevated to the category of a codal provision in article 1410. The Dingle case was decided by the Court of Appeals. Even the trial court did not take pains to verify the misrepresentation of plaintiffs' counsel that the Dingle case was decided by this Court. An elementary knowledge of civil law could have alerted the trial court to the egregious error of plaintiffs' counsel in arguing that article 1410 applies to wills.

WHEREFORE, the lower court's orders of May 3 trial June 17, 1968 are reversed trial set aside trial its order of dismissal dated January 10, 1968 is affirmed. Costs against the private respondents.