Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 105 views

    ALABAN Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Deness Caoili-Marcelo
    1) Alaban et al opposed the probate of Soledad Provido Elevenciado's will, arguing the RTC did not have jurisdiction due to defective publication and notice, and that the will was forged. 2) The RTC denied the motion, finding Alaban et al were notified by publication. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that publication of a notice of hearing in a probate case makes all interested parties through in rem jurisdiction, so Alaban et al became parties despite not being individually notified. Publication is intended to notify all potential claimants.

    Copyright:

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

    ALABAN Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Deness Caoili-Marcelo
    105 views22 pages
    1) Alaban et al opposed the probate of Soledad Provido Elevenciado's will, arguing the RTC did not have jurisdiction due to defective publication and notice, and that the will was forged. 2) The RTC denied the motion, finding Alaban et al were notified by publication. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that publication of a notice of hearing in a probate case makes all interested parties through in rem jurisdiction, so Alaban et al became parties despite not being individually notified. Publication is intended to notify all potential claimants.

    Original Title

    ALABAN vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Alaban et al opposed the probate of Soledad Provido Elevenciado's will, arguing the RTC did not have jurisdiction due to defective publication and notice, and that the will was forged. 2) The RTC denied the motion, finding Alaban et al were notified by publication. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that publication of a notice of hearing in a probate case makes all interested parties through in rem jurisdiction, so Alaban et al became parties despite not being individually notified. Publication is intended to notify all potential claimants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    105 views22 pages

    ALABAN Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Deness Caoili-Marcelo
    1) Alaban et al opposed the probate of Soledad Provido Elevenciado's will, arguing the RTC did not have jurisdiction due to defective publication and notice, and that the will was forged. 2) The RTC denied the motion, finding Alaban et al were notified by publication. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that publication of a notice of hearing in a probate case makes all interested parties through in rem jurisdiction, so Alaban et al became parties despite not being individually notified. Publication is intended to notify all potential claimants.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 22

    ALABAN VS CA

    and Provido

    GR. No. 156021


    September 23, 2005
    P
    Petitioners: CYNTHIA C. ALABAN, FRANCIS COLLADO, A
    JOSE P. COLLADO, JUDITH PROVIDO, CLARITA PROVIDO,
    ALFREDO PROVIDO, MANUEL PROVIDO, JR., LORNA DINA E. R
    PROVIDO, SEVERO ARENGA, JR.,
    T
    I
    Respondent: Francisco Provido E
    and the Court of Appeals S

    Decedent: Soledad Provido


    Elevenciado
    F
    November 2000: Respondent Provido A
    filed an application for probate of the
    will of Soledad Provido Elevenciado. C
    T
    S
    F
    A
    C
    T
    S
    ACTION OF THE RTC:
     Allowed the probate
     Ordered the issuance of the letters
    testamentary
    …4 MONTHS LATER....
    F
    A
    C
    T
    S

    Alaban et al filed a motion for the


    reopening of the probate proceedings
    and opposed the issuance of letters
    testamentary to Provido
    C
    1. The RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition.
    • Non-payment of correct docket fees
    • Defective publication
    O
    N
    T
    2. Lack of notice to the other heirs. E
    N
    T
    I
    3. The signature of the decedent was forged. O
    N
    F
    4. The will was not executed in
    accordance with the requirements
    A
    of the law. C
    5. The decedent lacked T
    testamentary capacity to execute S
    and publish a will.
    6. The decedent had no intention to
    make a will at the time of the
    affixing of the signature.

    7. The decedent did not know what


    properties no which no longer
    belong to her.
    C
    1. The RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition.
    • Non-payment of correct docket fees
    • Defective publication
    O
    N
    T
    2. Lack of notice to the other heirs. E
    N
    T
    I
    3. The signature of the decedent was forged. O
    N
    ACTION OF THE RTC:

    •DENIED the motion for re-opening of


    the proceedings.

    •WHY: The petitioners were deemed


    notified of the hearing by publication.
    I
    S
    Whether or not the petitioners S
    have become parties to the U
    probate proceedings by virtue of a E
    notice of publication
    Ruling
    YES. The Supreme Court held that the
    probate of a will is considered an action in
    rem.

    As an effect, the publication of the petition


    extends to all persons interested in said will
    or in the settlement of the estate of the
    decedent.
    Petitioners became parties
    due to the publication of the
    notice of hearing.
    PURPOSE OF PUBLICATION:
    Publication is notice to the whole
    world that the proceeding has for its
    object to bar indefinitely all who
    might be minded to make an objection
    of any right sought to be established.
    PURPOSE OF PUBLICATION:
    It is the publication that brings the
    whole world as a party in the case and
    vests the court within jurisdiction to
    hear and decide it.
    PURPOSE OF PUBLICATION:
    EVEN THOUGH the parties were NOT
    mentioned in the petition for probate,
    they eventually became parties
    thereto as a consequence of the
    publication of the notice of hearing.
    Question: Who are entitled
    to personal notice?

    A: Only to the known heirs,


    legatees, and devisee of the
    testator.
    Additional Notes on Ruling
    1. Filing of the motion was filed
    out of time.
    2. Failure to pay the court dockets
    does not result in outright
    dismissal.
    Additional Notes on Ruling
    3. Petition for annulment shall
    only be filed if there is extrinsic
    fraud
    4. Failure to comply with the
    substantive remedies
    THE END

    You might also like