Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 104 views

    G.R. No. 108581

    Uploaded by

    Bluebells33
    This case involved a will that was admitted to probate but later declared intrinsically void through an order that became final and executory. The Supreme Court held that (1) a final and executory decision cannot be disturbed or reopened, regardless of errors, and (2) once a will is declared intrinsically void through a final order, the rules of intestate succession must be followed in distributing the estate, rather than the terms of the will. Therefore, the will that was declared intrinsically void through a final order could no longer be given effect.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 108581

    Uploaded by

    Bluebells33
    104 views3 pages
    This case involved a will that was admitted to probate but later declared intrinsically void through an order that became final and executory. The Supreme Court held that (1) a final and executory decision cannot be disturbed or reopened, regardless of errors, and (2) once a will is declared intrinsically void through a final order, the rules of intestate succession must be followed in distributing the estate, rather than the terms of the will. Therefore, the will that was declared intrinsically void through a final order could no longer be given effect.

    Original Title

    G.R. No. 108581.docx

    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 involved a will that was admitted to probate but later declared intrinsically void through an order that became final and executory. The Supreme Court held that (1) a final and executory decision cannot be disturbed or reopened, regardless of errors, and (2) once a will is declared intrinsically void through a final order, the rules of intestate succession must be followed in distributing the estate, rather than the terms of the will. Therefore, the will that was declared intrinsically void through a final order could no longer be given effect.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 108581

    Uploaded by

    Bluebells33
    This case involved a will that was admitted to probate but later declared intrinsically void through an order that became final and executory. The Supreme Court held that (1) a final and executory decision cannot be disturbed or reopened, regardless of errors, and (2) once a will is declared intrinsically void through a final order, the rules of intestate succession must be followed in distributing the estate, rather than the terms of the will. Therefore, the will that was declared intrinsically void through a final order could no longer be given effect.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    LOURDES L. DOROTHEO, petitioner, vs.

    COURT OF APPEALS,
    NILDA D. QUINTANA, for Herself and as Attorney-in-Fact of
    VICENTE DOROTHEO and JOSE DOROTHEO, respondents.

    G.R. No. 108581 December 8, 1999

    YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

    FACTS:

    Private respondents were the legitimate children of Alejandro


    Dorotheo and Aniceta Reyes. The latter died in 1969 without her estate
    being settled. Alejandro died thereafter. Sometime in 1977, after Alejandro's
    death, petitioner, who claims to have taken care of Alejandro before he died,
    filed a special proceeding for the probate of the latter's last will and
    testament. In 1981, the court issued an order admitting Alejandro's will to
    probate. Private respondents did not appeal from said order. In 1983, they
    filed a "Motion To Declare The Will Intrinsically Void." The trial court
    granted the motion and issued an order.

    Petitioner moved for reconsideration arguing that she is entitled to


    some compensation since she took care of Alejandro prior to his death
    although she admitted that they were not married to each other. Upon denial
    of her motion for reconsideration, petitioner appealed to the Court of
    Appeals, but the same was dismissed for failure to file appellant's brief
    within the extended period granted. This dismissal became final and
    executory on February 3, 1989 and a corresponding entry of judgment was
    forthwith issued by the Court of Appeals on May 16, 1989.

    An Order was issued on November 29, 1990 setting aside the final
    and executory Order dated January 30, 1986, as well as the Order directing
    the issuance of the writ of execution, on the ground that the order was
    merely "interlocutory", hence not final in character. The court added that the
    dispositive portion of the said Order even directs the distribution of the
    estate of the deceased spouses. Private respondents filed a motion for
    reconsideration which was denied in an Order dated February 1, 1991.
    ISSUE:

    May a last will and testament admitted to probate but declared


    intrinsically void in an order that has become final and executory still be
    given effect?

    HELD:

    No. A final and executory decision or order can no longer be


    disturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous it may be. It should be noted
    that probate proceedings deals generally with the extrinsic validity of the
    will sought to be probated, particularly on three aspects:

    - whether the will submitted is indeed, the decedent's last will and
    testament;
    - compliance with the prescribed formalities for the execution of
    wills;
    - the testamentary capacity of the testator; and
    - the due execution of the last will and testament.

    Under the Civil Code, due execution includes a determination of


    whether the testator was of sound and disposing mind at the time of its
    execution, that he had freely executed the will and was not acting under
    duress, fraud, menace or undue influence and that the will is genuine and not
    a forgery, that he was of the proper testamentary age and that he is a person
    not expressly prohibited by law from making a will.

    The intrinsic validity is another matter and questions regarding the


    same may still be raised even after the will has been authenticated. Thus, it
    does not necessarily follow that an extrinsically valid last will and testament
    is always intrinsically valid. The only instance where a party interested in a
    probate proceeding may have a final liquidation set aside is when he is left
    out by reason of circumstances beyond his control or through mistake or
    inadvertence not imputable to negligence, which circumstances do not
    concur herein.

    Petitioner was privy to the suit calling for the declaration of the
    intrinsic invalidity of the will, as she precisely appealed from an unfavorable
    order therefrom. Although the final and executory Order of January 30, 1986
    wherein private respondents were declared as the only heirs do not bind
    those who are not parties thereto such as the alleged illegitimate son of the
    testator, the same constitutes res judicata with respect to those who were
    parties to the probate proceedings. Petitioner cannot again raise those
    matters anew for relitigation otherwise that would amount to forum-
    shopping. It should be remembered that forum shopping also occurs when
    the same issue had already been resolved adversely by some other court. It is
    clear from the executory order that the estates of Alejandro and his spouse
    should be distributed according to the laws of intestate succession.

    It can be clearly inferred from Article 960 of the Civil Code, on the
    law of successional rights that testacy is preferred to intestacy. But before
    there could be testate distribution, the will must pass the scrutinizing test and
    safeguards provided by law considering that the deceased testator is no
    longer available to prove the voluntariness of his actions, aside from the fact
    that the transfer of the estate is usually onerous in nature and that no one is
    presumed to give — Nemo praesumitur donare. No intestate distribution of
    the estate can be done until and unless the will had failed to pass both its
    extrinsic and intrinsic validity. If the will is extrinsically void, the rules of
    intestacy apply regardless of the intrinsic validity thereof. If it is
    extrinsically valid, the next test is to determine its intrinsic validity — that is
    whether the provisions of the will are valid according to the laws of
    succession. In this case, the court had ruled that the will of Alejandro was
    extrinsically valid but the intrinsic provisions thereof were void. Thus, the
    rules of intestacy apply as correctly held by the trial court.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the decision appealed from is


    AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.

    You might also like