1.a Gallanosa V Arcangel

Gallanosa v.
Arcangel
83 SCRA 676
FACTS:
Florentino Hitosis was a childless widower and was survived by his brother Lito. In his
will, Florentino bequeathed his ½ share in the conjugal estate to his second wife, Tecla,
and, should Tecla predecease him, as was the case, his ½ share would be assigned to
spouses Gallanosa. Pedro Gallanosa was Tecla’s son by her first marriage who grew up
under the care of Florentino. His other properties were bequeathed to his protégé Adolfo
Fortajada.
Upon his death, a petition for the probate of his will was wile. Opposition
was registered by Florentino’s brother, nephews and nieces.
After a hearing, where the oppositors did not present any evidence, the Judge admitted
the will to probate.
The testator’s 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.
The legal heirs did not appeal from the order of dismissal.
15 years after the dismissal of the first civil case and 28 years after the probate of the will,
the legal heirs filed a case for “annulment of the will” alleging fraud and deceit.
The court dismissed said action. However, the court set aside the dismissal after
the heirs filed a motion for reconsideration. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether the legal heirs have a cause of action for the “annulment” of the will of Florentino
and for the recovery of the 61 parcels of land adjudicated under that will to the petitioners.
HELD:
NO. The SC held that the lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion in setting
aside its order of dismissal and ignoring the testamentary case and the first civil case
which is the same as the instant case. It is evident that second civil case is barred by res
judicata and by prescription.
The decree of probate is conclusive as to the due execution or formal validity of the will.
That means that the testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time 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.
Accordingly, these facts cannot again be questioned in a subsequent proceeding, not even
in a criminal action for the forgery of the will.
After the finality of the allowance of a will, the issue as to the voluntariness of its execution
cannot be raised anymore.
The SC also held that the decree of adjudication, having rendered in a proceeding in rem,
is binding upon the whole world. Moreover, the dismissal of the first civil case, which is a
judgment in personam, was an adjudication on the merits. Thus. It constitutes a bar by
former judgment under the Rules of Court.
The SC also held that the lower court erred in saying that the action for the recovery of
the lands had not prescribed. The SC ruled that the Art. 1410 of NCC (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.
A final decree of probate is conclusive as to the due execution of the will.
A decree of adjudication in a testate proceeding is binding on the whole world.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 (4) years from the discovery of fraud.
The Civil Law rule that an action for declaration of inexistence of a contract does not
prescribe cannot be applied to last wills and testaments.

1.a Gallanosa V Arcangel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.a Gallanosa V Arcangel

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.a Gallanosa V Arcangel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gallanosa v.

A final decree of probate is conclusive as to the due execution of the will.

A decree of adjudication in a testate proceeding is binding on the whole world.After the

You might also like