ALABAN V. COURT OF APPEALS G.R.NO.

156021 SEPTEMBER 23, 2005

Tinga, J:

Facts:
Respondent Fransisco Provido filed a petition for the probate of the Last Will and
Testament of the late Soledad Prrovido Elevencionado. The reposndent condtended that he was
the heir of the decendent and the executor of the will. The RTC allowed the probate of the will
and directed the issuance of letters testamentary to respondent.
After four months, petitioner filed a motion for the reopening of the probate proceeding.
The petitioner claimed that they are the intestate heirs of the descendent. They contended that
RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition due to non-payment of the correct docket fees,
defective publication, and lack of notice of the others heirs. The will could not have been
probated because the signature was forged, the will was not executed in accordance with the law,
the witnesses failed to sign below the attestation clause, the decedent lacked testamentary
capacity to execute and publish a will, the will was executed by force and under duress and
improper pressure, the descendent had no intention to make will at the time of affixing of her
signature, and she did not know the properties to be disposed of, having included in the will
properties which no longer belonged to her.
RTC denied the motion and ruled that the petitioner were notified by the publication and
the deficiency in the payment of docket fees is not a ground for outright dismissal of the case.
CA dismissed the petition of the petitioner and ruled that there is no showing that the petitioner
failed to availed of or resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief of
judgment, or other appropriate remedies through no fault of their own.

Issue:
Whether or not the allowance of the will to probate should be annulled for failure to mentioned
the petitioner as parties?

Held:
No, the allowance of the will to probate should not be annulled for failure to mentioned the
petitioner as parties.

Ratio:
Probate of a will is considered action in rem. 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.
Petitioner became parties due to the publication of the notice of hearing.
The filing of motion to reopen is similar to a motion for new trial. The ruling became final
executor because the motion was filed out of time. Given that they knew of the decision four
months after they could have filed a petition for relief from judgment after the denial of their
motion to reopen.
Petition for annulment of judgment must still fail for failure to comply with the substantive
requisites. An action for annulment of judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case
where the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered. The purpose to have the final and
executor judgment set aside so that there will be a renewal of litigation. The two grounds are
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction of denial of due process. An action to annul a final
judgment on the ground of fraud lies only if the fraud is extrinsic or collateral in character.
Extrinsic fraud is present when a party having a trial or from representing his entire case to the
court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in
which it is procured. Notice is required to be personally given to known heirs, legatees, and
devisees of the testator. The will states that the respondent was instituted as the sole heir of the
descendent this he has no legal obligation to mention petitioners in the petition for probate or
personally notify them.