FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 24168. September 22, 1925.]

FLORENCIO MANALO, as guardian of the minors Lazaro Mendieta

and Daria Mendieta , petitioner, vs . Honorable ISIDRO PAREDES,
Judge of First Instance of Laguna, and PHILIPPINE FOOD
COMPANY , respondents.

Francisco, Lualhati & Lopez and Juan S. Rustia for petitioner.

Claro M. Recto, Ross, Lawrence & Selph and Antonio T. Carrascoso, Jr., for
respondents.
J. E. Blanco for the intervenor Hidalgo.

SYLLABUS

1. WILLS; PROBATE OF; PROCEEDING "IN REM." — The proceeding for the
probate of a will is one in rem (40 Cyc., 1265), and the court acquires jurisdiction over
all the persons interested, through the publication of the notice prescribed by section
630 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and any order that may be entered therein is binding
against all of them.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION. — Through the publication of the petition for the
probate of the will, the court acquires jurisdiction over all such persons as are
interested in said will; and any judgment that may be rendered after said proceeding is
binding against the whole world.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; APPEAL. — The court having jurisdiction over the subject-
matter and all the persons interested in the case, any error that it might have
committed in rendering judgment cannot be corrected through mandamus, but by
proper appeal presented in due time and manner.

DECISION

VILLA-REAL , J : p

This is a proceeding for mandamus commenced originally in this court by

Florencio Manalo, as guardian of the minors Lazaro and Daria Mendieta, for the
issuance of a writ of mandamus addressed to the Honorable Isidro Paredes, Judge of
the Court of First Instance of Laguna, and the Philippine Food Co., ordering the
publication of the petitioner for the probate of the will of the deceased Francisco
Villegas, case No. 4217 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna; and injunction
commanding the respondent judge, Honorable Isidro Paredes, to suspend the
proceeding in the registration case No. 954 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna,
wherein the Philippine Food Co. is the applicant and the minors Lazaro and Daria
Mendieta opponents, until the termination of the proceeding for the probate of the will
of Francisco Villegas, in which said minors are named legatees of the land involved in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 said registration case.
On March 22, 1924, Laureana Hidalgo, surviving spouse of Francisco Villegas,
led with the Court of First Instance of Laguna an application for letters of
administration of the estate left by her deceased husband, who, according to the
application, died intestate (rec. No. 4031, le 1, of the Court of First Instance of
Laguna).
In the course of said administration and on May 5, 1924, Justina Mendieta,
Lazaro Mendieta, Daria Mendieta, and Melecio Fule, supposed testamentary executor,
through their attorney, Mr. Eusebio Lopez, led a motion with the court, praying for the
probate of the supposed will of Francisco Villegas, wherein most of his property was
given as a legacy to said Justina Mendieta, the latter's children and the legitimate wife
of the deceased Francisco Villegas (rec. No. 4031, file 1, fol. 47).
On August 8, 1924, Messrs. E. M. Lopez and V. F. Reyes, attorneys, on behalf of
the executor Melecio Fule, led a motion (Exhibit 3) wherein they stated that the
attesting witnesses, Exequiel Evidente and Albino Villegas, had assured them that the
supposed will had not been executed by Francisco Villegas in accordance with law, and
that the executed by Francisco Villegas in accordance with law, and that the executor
Melecio Fule no longer took interest in the case (rec. No. 4031, fol. 116).
On June 5, 1924, having received an order of the court requiring her to produce
the supposed will of Francisco Villegas, Justina Mendieta led a motion, wherein,
among other things, she said:
"That having learned of the aforesaid order of this court, I hereby freely and
spontaneously state that I know not of any will executed by the deceased
Francisco Villegas, except the one that I had said deceased Francisco Villegas
sign on January 18, 1924, which he signed at my request and inducement in order
that my children begotten by him might have a share in his estate, as said
deceased did in fact sign said will only in my presence and compelled by the
pressure exerted by me and for my aforesaid children." (Rec. No. 4031, le 1, fol.
70.)
Notwithstanding the foregoing motions, the court, on September 3, 1924,
ordered the publication in the newspaper El Debate, of Manila, of the application of
Melecio Fule and of Justina Mendieta, Lazaro Mendieta, and Daria Mendieta for the
probate of the supposed will of the deceased Francisco Villegas, setting said
application for hearing on the 3d of October, 1924 (rec. No. 1031, file 1, fol. 192).
On September 5, 1924, Justina Mendieta, together with her children Lazaro
Mendieta and Daria Mendieta, led another application for the probate of the same will
through their attorneys, Messrs. Azada and Veluz (rec. No. 4031, le 1, fol. 199), and on
October 13, 1924, the same attorneys and Attorney Marcelino Lontok, on behalf of
Justina Mendieta and her minor children, led a motion for the appointment of a
guardian ad litem for said mirrors (rec. No. 4031, file 2, fol. 117).
At the trial, which was held October 16, 1924, the court below appointed Justina
Mendieta, natural mother of said minors, as their guardian ad litem. Laureana Hidalgo
entered her objection to the probate of the will (rec. No. 4031, le 2, fol. 136) and
immediately the court proceeded to hear the evidence of the parties, each and everyone
of the attesting witnesses of the supposed will, named Tomas Dizon, Albino Villegas,
and Exequiel Evidente having testi ed, and the applicants having introduced Exhibits A,
B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, and N and the opponent Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4, the trial
having been suspended thereafter, to be continued on October 24, 1924.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 When the case was called on October 24, 1924, for the continuation of the trial,
Justina Mendieta, for herself and in her capacity as guardian ad litem of her minor
children Lazaro Mendieta and Daria Mendieta, represented by their attorneys, Messrs.
Marcelino Lontok and Marcial Azada, on the one hand, and Laureana Hidalgo,
represented by her attorney, Mr. J. E. Blanco, on the other, submitted to the court an
agreement wherein Justina Mendieta stated that she withdrew her application for the
probate of the supposed will of the deceased Francisco Villegas on the ground that the
evidence was insu cient to justify the probate of said will, and consequently, she
prayed that said will be held not allowable to probate and that the deceased died
intestate, without leaving any more heirs than his legitimate wife, Laureana Hidalgo, and
his two adulterous children, Lazaro and Daria Mendieta, and that the property of the
deceased be distributed in accordance with said agreement (rec. No. 4031, le 2, fol.
171).
By an order dated October 25, 1924, the court approved said stipulation and
rendered judgment, holding that the supposed will of Francisco Villegas could not be
probated, and awarding to the heirs of the deceased the estate left by Francisco
Villegas in accordance with said agreement (rec. No. 4031, le 2, fol. 173). From this
order no appeal has been taken.
On January 7, 1925, one Gelacio Malihan, who claimed to be rst cousin of the
deceased Francisco Villegas, led with the court a new application for the probate of
the same supposed will of the deceased Francisco Villegas (rec. No. 4217).
As may be seen from the facts above stated, the will, the probate of which is
applied for in the petition dated January 7, 1925, is the same one that was the subject
of the application of May 5, 1924, and of September 5, 1924. The only difference lies in
that the rst application was led by Justina Mendieta and her minor children, Lazaro
Mendieta and Daria Mendieta and Melecio Fule, supposed testamentary executor, all
represented by the attorney, Mr. Eusebio M. Lopez; the second by Justina Mendoza and
her minor children Lazaro Mendieta and Daria Mendieta, represented by the attorneys
Messrs. Azada and Veluz; and the third and last by one Gelacio Malihan who claimed to
be first cousin of the deceased Francisco Villegas.
The proceeding for the probate of a will is a proceeding in rem (40 Cyc., p. 1265),
and the court acquires jurisdiction over all the persons interested through the
publication of the notice prescribed by section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and
any order that may be entered is binding against all of them. Through the publication
ordered by the Court of First Instance of Laguna of the application for the probate of
the supposed will of Francisco Villegas, led by Justina Mendieta and her minor
children Lazaro and Daria Mendieta and Melecio Fule, testamentary executor, through
their attorney, Mr. Eusebio Lopez, said court acquired jurisdiction over all such persons
as were interested in the supposed will, including Gelacio Malihan. The court having
tried said application for probate, hearing all the testimony of the attesting witnesses
of the said supposed will, the applicant Justina Mendieta for herself and as guardian ad
litem of her minor children, represented by their attorneys, Messrs. Marcelino Lontok
and Marcial Azada, on the one hand, and Laureana Hidalgo, widow of Francisco Villegas,
represented by her attorney, Jesus E. Blanco, on the other, having submitted a
stipulation wherein the former withdrew her application and the latter reserved certain
rights over the estate left by Francisco Villegas in favor of Justina Mendieta and her
minor children; and the court having approved said stipulation and declared that
Francisco Villegas died intestate according to said agreement, all the parties became
bound by said judgment; and if any of them or other persons interested were not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 satis ed with the court's decision, they had the remedy of appeal to correct any
injustice that might have been committed, and cannot now through the special remedy
of mandamus, obtain a review of the proceeding upon a new application for the probate
of the same will, in order to compel the respondent judge to comply with his ministerial
duty imposed by section 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure; because this remedy,
being extraordinary, cannot be used in lieu of appeal, writ of error (26 Cyc., 177; 18
R.C.L., par. 443); especially when the parties interested have agreed to disregard the
testamentary provisions and divide the estate as they pleased, each of them taking
what pertained to him (25 R.C.L., 359).
The rst ground of the petition for mandamus is a consequence of the second
and we need not deal with it.
As to the motion of the petitioner that the record of the proceeding be
transmitted to the Attorney-General for investigation, in order to discover any
irregularity or fraud that may have been committed, and to institute the proper
proceeding against those who may be found guilty, this court will take no action unless
specific charges are filed.
For all of the foregoing, the petition for mandamus is denied with the costs
against the petitioner. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, and
Romualdez, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com