- CASE DIGEST -
Gallanosa
v. Arcangel
G.R. No.
L-29300; June 21, 1978
Topic/Doctrine: Allowance and Disallowance of Wills
FACTS:
Florentino Hitosis executed a will in 1938 when he was eighty years old
wherein he instituted as his only heirs his stepson Pedro Gallanosa and the
latter’s wife Corazon Grecia. He died in 1939, survived by his brother Leon
Hitosis and several nephews and nieces.
A petition for probate was duly filed by the testamentary heirs.
Opposition to the probate was registered by the legal heirs. After hearing, the
probate court admitted the will to probate and appointed Gallanosa as executor.
In 1943, a project of partition of sixty-one (61) parcels of land constituting
the bulk of the testator’s estate was finally approved. There was no appeal
from the decree of probate and from the order of partition and distribution.
In 1952, the testator’s legal heirs instituted an action for the
recovery of the 61 parcels of land on the ground of acquisitive prescription.
The action was dismissed. Again, there was no appeal from the order of
dismissal. In 1967, said legal heirs instituted another action in the same
court against the testamentary heirs for the “annulment” of the will and the
recovery of the 61 parcels of land, alleging that the Gallanosa spouses caused
the execution of the will through fraud and deceit. Upon motion of defendants,
the court dismissed the action. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration.
Respondent Judge granted it and set aside the order of dismissal. From this
order of dismissal, defendants went up to the Supreme Court by certiorari.
Petitioners (defendants) contend that private respondents (plaintiffs)
do not have a cause of action for the “annulment” of the will and for the
recovery of the 61 parcels of landby reason of res judicata and of prescription.
On the other hand, private respondents contend that the will is void, and
therefore their right of action is imprescriptible.
ISSUE: Whether or not the private respondents have a
cause of action for the annulment of the will of Florention Hitosis and for the
recovery of the parcels of land.
HELD: No.
The lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion in reconsidering
its order of dismissal and in ignoring the testamentary case. It is evident
from the allegations of the complaint that the action is barred by res
judicata. The decree of probate is conclusive as to the due execution or formal
validity of the will. The decree of adjudication rendered by the trial court in
the testate proceeding for the settlement of the estate of Florentino Hitosis
having been rendered in a proceeding in rem, is binding upon the whole world.
Speaking through Justice Aquino, the Supreme Court held:
“It is evident from the allegations of the complaint and from
defendants’ motion to dismiss that plaintiffs’ 1967 action is barred by res
judicata, a double-barrelled defense, and by prescription, acquisitive and
extinctive, or by what are known in the jus civile and the jus gentium as
usucapio, longitemporispossesio and praescriptio" (See Ramos vs. Ramos, L-19872,
December 3, 1974, 61 SCRA 284).
Our procedural law does not sanction an action for the “annulment” of a
will. In order that a will may take effect, it has to be probated, legalized or
allowed in the proper testamentary proceeding. The probate of the will is
mandatory
The 1939 decree of probate is conclusive as to the due execution or
formal validity of the will.That means that the testator was of sound and
disposing mind at the time when he executed the will and was not acting under
duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence; that the will was signed by him in
the presence of the required number of witnesses, and that the will is genuine
and is not a forgery. Accordingly, these facts cannot again be questioned in a
subsequent proceeding, not even in a criminal action for the forgery of the
will.
click to view full text of the case
No comments:
Post a Comment