Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 257 views

    Gallanosa vs. Arcangel

    Uploaded by

    lawyerinthemaking2018
    This case involves a dispute over land bequeathed in a will. Florentino Hitosis executed a will in 1938 leaving his land to his second wife's son, Pedro Gallanosa, and another. After Florentino died in 1939, the will was admitted to probate over the objections of his brother and relatives. In 1967, the relatives filed a case to recover the lands, which was dismissed on grounds of res judicata. The judge later reconsidered this dismissal. The Supreme Court ruled the reconsideration was a grave abuse of discretion, as the relatives were improperly seeking to "annul" the will through a recovery case, when the proper recourse had long prescribed. The probate of the will was con

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Gallanosa vs. Arcangel

    Uploaded by

    lawyerinthemaking2018
    257 views3 pages
    This case involves a dispute over land bequeathed in a will. Florentino Hitosis executed a will in 1938 leaving his land to his second wife's son, Pedro Gallanosa, and another. After Florentino died in 1939, the will was admitted to probate over the objections of his brother and relatives. In 1967, the relatives filed a case to recover the lands, which was dismissed on grounds of res judicata. The judge later reconsidered this dismissal. The Supreme Court ruled the reconsideration was a grave abuse of discretion, as the relatives were improperly seeking to "annul" the will through a recovery case, when the proper recourse had long prescribed. The probate of the will was con

    Original Description:

    civil law 1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over land bequeathed in a will. Florentino Hitosis executed a will in 1938 leaving his land to his second wife's son, Pedro Gallanosa, and another. After Florentino died in 1939, the will was admitted to probate over the objections of his brother and relatives. In 1967, the relatives filed a case to recover the lands, which was dismissed on grounds of res judicata. The judge later reconsidered this dismissal. The Supreme Court ruled the reconsideration was a grave abuse of discretion, as the relatives were improperly seeking to "annul" the will through a recovery case, when the proper recourse had long prescribed. The probate of the will was con

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    257 views3 pages

    Gallanosa vs. Arcangel

    Uploaded by

    lawyerinthemaking2018
    This case involves a dispute over land bequeathed in a will. Florentino Hitosis executed a will in 1938 leaving his land to his second wife's son, Pedro Gallanosa, and another. After Florentino died in 1939, the will was admitted to probate over the objections of his brother and relatives. In 1967, the relatives filed a case to recover the lands, which was dismissed on grounds of res judicata. The judge later reconsidered this dismissal. The Supreme Court ruled the reconsideration was a grave abuse of discretion, as the relatives were improperly seeking to "annul" the will through a recovery case, when the proper recourse had long prescribed. The probate of the will was con

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    PEDRO D. H.

    GALLANOSA, CORAZON GRECIA-GALLONOSA and ADOLFO


    FORTAJADA, the deceased Pedro Gallanosa being substituted by his legal heirs, namely
    his above-named widow and his children, ISIDRO GALLANOSA and LEDY
    GALLANOSA, and grandchildren named IMELDA TECLA GALLANOSA and
    ROSARIO BRIGIDA GALLANOSA, children of the late SIKATUNA GALLANOSA, son
    of Pedro D.H. GALLONOSA, petitioners,
    vs.
    HON. UBALDO Y. ARCANGEL, Judge of Branch I of the Court of First Instance of
    Sorsogon and FLORENTINO G. HITOSIS, CASIANO G. HITOSIS, TEOTIMO G.
    HITOSIS, VICTORIO G. HITOSIS, EMILIA G. HITOSIS VDA. DE CRUZ, JOAQUIN R.
    HITOSIS VDA. DE CRUZ, JOAQUIN R. HITOSIS, FLORENTINO R. HITOSIS,
    VIRGINIA R. MITOSIS, DEBORAH R. HITOSIS, EDILBERTO R. HITOSIS, LEONOR
    R. HITOSIS, NORMA R. HITOSIS-VILLANUEVA, LEONCIO R. HITOSIS, minors
    ANGEL R. HITOSIS and RODOLFO R. HITOSIS, represented by their legal guardian
    and mother LOURDES RELUCIO VDA. DE HITOSIS, PETRONA HITOSIS-BALBIDO,
    MODESTO HITOSIS-GACILO, CLETO HITOSIS, AGUSTIN HITOSIS-FORTES,
    TOMASA HITOSIS-BANARES VDA. DE BORRAS, CONRADA HITOSIS-BANARES
    FRANCHE, RESTITUTO HITOSIS-BANARES, DAMIAN HITOSIS-BANARES, FIDEL
    HITOSIS-BANARES, SUSANA HITOSIS-BANARES RODRIGUEZ, JOSE HITOSIS,
    LOLITA HITOSIS-BANEGA, minors MILAGROS HITOSIS-BANEGA, ALICIA
    HITOSIS-BANEGA AND ELISA HITOSIS-BANEGA, represented by their legal guardian
    and father ERNESTO BANEGA, FELICITAS HITOSIS-PENAFLOR, GENOVEVA
    HITOSIS-ADRIATICO, MANUEL HITOSIS, PEDRO HITOSIS, LIBRATA HITOSISBALMES, JUANITA HITOSIS-GABITO VDA. DE GABAS, MAURA HITOSIS-GABITO
    VDA. DE GANOLA and LEONA HITOSIS-GABITO GAMBA, respondents.
    (G.R. No. L-29300; June 21, 1978)
    AQUINO, J.:
    NATURE OF THE CASE: It is a special civil action of certiorari, filed on July 29, 1968, the
    petitioners seek to annul the orders of respondent Judge dated May 3 trial June 17, 1968, wherein
    he reconsidered his order of January 10, 1968, dismissing, on the ground of prescription, the
    complaint in Civil Case No. 2233 of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon.
    FACTS: Florentino Hitosis executed a will in the Bicol dialect on June 19, 1938 when he was
    eighty years old. He died on May 26, 1939 at Irosin, Sorsogon. A childless widower, he was
    survived by his brother, Leon Hitosis. His other brothers, named Juan, Tito (Juancito), Leoncio
    (Aloncio) trial Apolonio and only sister, Teodora, were all dead.
    On June 24, 1939 a petition for the probate of his will was filed in the Court of First Instance of
    Sorsogon (Special Proceeding No. 3171). The notice of hearing was duly published. In that will,
    Florentino bequeathed his one-half share in the conjugal estate to his second wife, Tecla
    Dollentas, and, should Tecla predecease him, as was the case, his one-half share would be
    assigned to the spouses Pedro Gallanosa and Corazon Grecia, the reason being that Pedro, Tecla's
    son by her first marriage, grew up under the care of Florentino, he had treated Pedro as his foster

    child, and Pedro has rendered services to Florentino and Tecla. Florentino likewise bequeathed
    his separate properties consisting of three parcels of abaca land and parcel of riceland to his
    protege (sasacuyang ataman), Adolfo Fortajada, a minor.
    Upon his death, a petition for the probate of his will was wile. Opposition was registered by
    Florentinos brother, nephews and nieces. Upon his death, a petition for the probate of his will
    was wile. Opposition was registered by Florentinos brother, nephews and nieces.
    After a hearing, where the oppositors did not present any evidence, the Judge admitted the will to
    probate. The testators legal heirs did not appeal from the decree of probate and from the order of
    partition and distribution.
    Later, the legal heirs filed a case for recovery of 61 parcels of land against Pedro alleging that
    they had been in continuous possession of those lands and praying that they be declared owners
    thereof.
    Pedro moved for a dismissal which was later granted by the Judge on the ground of res judicata.
    Issue: Whether or not 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.
    Held: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion in
    reconsideration its order of dismissal trial in ignoring the testamentary case trial Civil Case No.
    696 which is the same as the instant case. What the plaintiffs seek is the "annulment" of a last
    will trial testament duly probated by the lower court itself.
    A final decree of probate is conclusive as to the due execution of the will. Due execution means
    that the testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time of the execution and that he was not
    acting under duress, menace, fraud or undue influence. Finally, that it was executed in
    accordance with the formalities provided by law. The proceeding is coupled with an action to
    recover the lands adjudicated to the defendants by the same court by virtue of the probated will,
    which action is a resuscitation of the complaint of the same parties that the same court dismissed.
    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).
    The Supreme Court also held that the lower court erred in saying that the action for the recovery
    of the lands had not prescribed. The Supreme Court ruled that the Art. 1410 of New Civil Code
    (the action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe)
    cannot apply to last wills and testaments.
    The Rules of Court does not sanction an action for annulment of a will

    The period for seeking relief under Rule 38 has already expired, hence the judgment may only be
    set aside on the grounds of, 1) lack of jurisdiction or lack of due process of law, and 2) the
    judgment was obtained by means of extrinsic collateral fraud (which must be filed within 4 years
    from the discovery). Finally, Article 1410 cannot apply to wills and testament.

    You might also like