Alaban v. Court of Appeals

Alaban v.
Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 156021, September 2005
According to the Rules, notice is required to be personally given to known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the
testator. Nephews and nieces of the decedent are neither compulsory nor testate heirs who are entitled to be notified
of the probate proceedings under the Rules.
[OVERVIEW]
Petitioners are nephew and nieces of deceased, who assail the RTC’s decision awarding the administration of the
deceased’s estate in favor of Respondent. They allege that they had not been notified of said proceedings and thus
the court had not acquired jurisdiction over the case.
RTC denied, which was affirmed by the CA. The SC ruled that the publication of the probate proceedings serves as
notice to the whole world. Moreover, nephews and nieces are not compulsory heirs that need to be notified. SC ruled
in favor of Respondent.
FACTS:
Respondent Francisco filed a petition for the probate of the Last Will and Testament of the late Soledad
Elevencionado (nindotag apelyido oy). Fransisco alleged that he was the heir of the decedent and the executor of her
will. RTC rendered a decision awarding the administration over the deceased’s properties in his favor.
4 months later, herein petitioners filed for the reopening of the probate proceedings, opposing to the allowance of the
will of the decedent, as well as the issuance of letters testamentary to respondent.
Petitioners claim that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition due to non-payment of the correct docket
fees, defective publication, and lack of notice to the other heirs. They also allege both intrinsic and extrinsic infirmities
in the will.
LOWER COURT’S RULING:
RTC- Denied petitioners. As to jurisdiction, petitioners were deemed notified of the hearing by publication and that the
deficiency in the payment of docket fees is not a ground for the outright dismissal of the petition. It merely required
respondent to pay the deficiency. Moreover, the RTC’s Decision was already final and executory even before
petitioners’ filing of the motion to reopen.
CA- Dismissed petition. CA said petitioners should have availed of other remedies first.
ISSUE:
WON there was a lack of jurisdiction.
HELD:
NO, there was no lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioners in this case are mistaken in asserting that they are not or have not become parties to the probate
proceedings.
According to the Rules, notice is required to be personally given to known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the
testator. A perusal of the will shows that only Respondent Fransisco was instituted as the sole heir of the decedent.
Petitioners, as nephews and nieces of the decedent, are neither compulsory nor testate heirs who are entitled to be
notified of the probate proceedings under the Rules. Respondent had no legal obligation to mention petitioners in the
petition for probate, or to personally notify them of the same.
Besides, assuming arguendo that petitioners are entitled to be so notified, the purported infirmity is cured by the
publication of the notice. After all, personal notice upon the heirs is a matter of procedural convenience and not a
jurisdictional requisite.
Under the Rules of Court, any executor, devisee, or legatee named in a will, or any other person interested in the
estate may, at any time after the death of the testator, petition the court having jurisdiction to have the will allowed.
Notice of the time and place for proving the will must be published for three (3) consecutive weeks, in a
newspaper of general circulation in the province, as well as furnished to the designated or other known heirs,
legatees, and devisees of the testator. Thus, it has been held that a proceeding for the probate of a will is one in
rem, such that with the corresponding publication of the petition the court's jurisdiction extends to all persons
interested in said will or in the settlement of the estate of the decedent
Thus, even though petitioners were not mentioned in the petition for probate, they eventually became parties thereto
as a consequence of the publication of the notice of hearing.
As to the issue of petitioners not availing of other remedies first:
As parties to the probate proceedings, petitioners could have validly availed of the remedies of motion for new trial or
reconsideration and petition for relief from judgment. In fact, petitioners filed a motion to reopen, which is essentially a
motion for new trial, with petitioners praying for the reopening of the case. For failure to make use without sufficient
justification of the said remedies available to them, petitioners could no longer resort to a petition for annulment of
judgment; otherwise, they would benefit from their own inaction or negligence.
Naa pud issue on forum shopping but not relevant to us.
FALLO: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

Alaban v. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alaban v. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Alaban v. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alaban v.

G.R. No. 156021, September 2005

LOWER COURT’S RULING:

WON there was a lack of jurisdiction.

NO, there was no lack of jurisdiction.

As to the issue of petitioners not availing of other remedies first:

Naa pud issue on forum shopping but not relevant to us.

FALLO: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

You might also like