8/29/2016

G.R. No. 108581

TodayisMonday,August29,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.108581December8,1999
LOURDESL.DOROTHEO,petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, NILDA D. QUINTANA, for Herself and as AttorneyinFact of VICENTE DOROTHEO
andJOSEDOROTHEO,respondents.

YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:
Mayalastwillandtestamentadmittedtoprobatebutdeclaredintrinsicallyvoidinanorderthathasbecomefinal
andexecutorystillbegiveneffect?Thisistheissuethatarosefromthefollowingantecedents:
PrivaterespondentswerethelegitimatechildrenofAlejandroDorotheoandAnicetaReyes.Thelatterdiedin1969
without her estate being settled. Alejandro died thereafter. Sometime in 1977, after Alejandro's death, petitioner,
whoclaimstohavetakencareofAlejandrobeforehedied,filedaspecialproceedingfortheprobateofthelatter's
lastwillandtestament.In1981,thecourtissuedanorderadmittingAlejandro'swilltoprobate.Privaterespondents
didnotappealfromsaidorder.In1983,theyfileda"MotionToDeclareTheWillIntrinsicallyVoid."Thetrialcourt
grantedthemotionandissuedanorder,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,OrderisherebyissueddeclaringLourdesLegaspinotthewife
ofthelateAlejandroDorotheo,theprovisionsofthelastwillandtestamentofAlejandroDorotheoas
intrinsically void, and declaring the oppositors Vicente Dorotheo, Jose Dorotheo and Nilda Dorotheo
Quintana as the only heirs of the late spouses Alejandro Dorotheo and Aniceta Reyes, whose
respectiveestatesshallbeliquidatedanddistributedaccordingtothelawsonintestacyuponpayment
ofestateandothertaxesduetothegovernment.1
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
motionforreconsideration,petitionerappealedtotheCourtofAppeals,butthesamewasdismissedforfailuretofile
appellant'sbriefwithintheextendedperiod
granted. 2 This dismissal became final and executory on February 3, 1989 and a corresponding entry of judgment was
forthwithissuedbytheCourtofAppealsonMay16,1989.Awritofexecutionwasissuedbythelowercourttoimplementthe
finalandexecutoryOrder.Consequently,privaterespondentsfiledseveralmotionsincludingamotiontocompelpetitionerto
surrender to them the Transfer Certificates of Titles (TCT) covering the properties of the late Alejandro. When petitioner
refusedtosurrendertheTCT's,privaterespondentsfiledamotionforcancellationofsaidtitlesandforissuanceofnewtitles
intheirnames.Petitioneropposedthemotion.

AnOrderwasissuedonNovember29,1990byJudgeZainB.AngassettingasidethefinalandexecutoryOrder
datedJanuary30,1986,aswellastheOrderdirectingtheissuanceofthewritofexecution,onthegroundthatthe
orderwasmerely"interlocutory",hencenotfinalincharacter.Thecourtaddedthatthedispositiveportionofthesaid
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. Thus, private respondents filed a petition
before the Court of Appeals, which nullified the two assailed Orders dated November 29, 1990 and February 1,
1991.
Aggrieved, petitioner instituted a petition for review arguing that the case filed by private respondents before the
Court of Appeals was a petition under Rule 65 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner contends that in issuing the two assailed orders, Judge Angas cannot be said to have no jurisdiction
because he was particularly designated to hear the case. Petitioner likewise assails the Order of the Court of
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/dec1999/gr_108581_1999.html

1/4

8/29/2016

G.R. No. 108581

AppealsupholdingthevalidityoftheJanuary30,1986OrderwhichdeclaredtheintrinsicinvalidityofAlejandro'swill
thatwasearlieradmittedtoprobate.
Petitioner also filed a motion to reinstate her as executrix of the estate of the late Alejandro and to maintain the
statusquoorleaseofthepremisesthereontothirdparties.3Privaterespondentsopposedthemotionontheground
thatpetitionerhasnointerestintheestatesincesheisnotthelawfulwifeofthelateAlejandro.

The petition is without merit. A final and executory decision or order can no longer be disturbed or reopened no
matterhowerroneousitmaybe.InsettingasidetheJanuary30,1986Orderthathasattainedfinality,thetrialcourt
in effect nullified the entry of judgment made by the Court of Appeals. It is well settled that a lower court cannot
reverseorsetasidedecisionsorordersofasuperiorcourt,fortodosowouldbetonegatethehierarchyofcourts
and nullify the essence of review. It has been ruled that a final judgment on probated will, albeit erroneous, is
bindingonthewholeworld.4
Ithasbeenconsistentlyheldthatifnoappealistakeninduetimefromajudgmentororderofthetrialcourt,the
same attains finality by mere lapse of time. Thus, the order allowing the will became final and the question
determinedbythecourtinsuchordercannolongerberaisedanew,eitherinthesameproceedingsorinadifferent
motion. The matters of due execution of the will and the capacity of the testator acquired the character of res
judicataandcannotagainbebroughtintoquestion,alljuridicalquestionsinconnectiontherewithbeingforonceand
forever closed. 5 Such final order makes the will conclusive against the whole world as to its extrinsic validity and due
execution.6

It should be noted that probate proceedings deals generally with the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be
probated,7particularlyonthreeaspects:
nwhetherthewillsubmittedisindeed,thedecedent'slastwillandtestament
ncompliancewiththeprescribedformalitiesfortheexecutionofwills
nthetestamentarycapacityofthetestator8
nandthedueexecutionofthelastwillandtestament.9

UndertheCivilCode,dueexecutionincludesadeterminationofwhetherthetestatorwasofsoundanddisposing
mind at the time of its execution, that he had freely executed the will and was not acting under duress, fraud,
menaceorundueinfluenceandthatthewillisgenuineandnotaforgery,10thathewasofthepropertestamentaryage
andthatheisapersonnotexpresslyprohibitedbylawfrommakingawill.11

Theintrinsicvalidityisanothermatterandquestionsregardingthesamemaystillberaisedevenafterthewillhas
been authenticated. 12 Thus, it does not necessarily follow that an extrinsically valid last will and testament is always
intrinsically valid. Even if the will was validly executed, if the testator provides for dispositions that deprives or impairs the
lawful heirs of their legitime or rightful inheritance according to the laws on succession, 13 the unlawful
provisions/dispositionsthereofcannotbegiveneffect.Thisisspeciallysowhenthecourtshadalreadydeterminedinafinal
andexecutorydecisionthatthewillisintrinsicallyvoid.Suchdeterminationhavingattainedthatcharacteroffinalityisbinding
onthisCourtwhichwillnolongerbedisturbed.NotthatthisCourtfindsthewilltobeintrinsicallyvalid,butthatafinaland
executorydecisionofwhichthepartyhadtheopportunitytochallengebeforethehighertribunalsmuststandandshouldno
longerbereevaluated.Failuretoavailoftheremediesprovidedbylawconstituteswaiver.Andifthepartydoesnotavailof
otherremediesdespiteitsbeliefthatitwasaggrievedbyadecisionorcourtaction,thenitisdeemedtohavefullyagreed
and is satisfied with the decision or order. As early as 1918, it has been declared that public policy and sound practice
demandthat,attheriskofoccasionalerrors,judgmentsofcourtsmustatsomepointoftimefixedbylaw 14becomefinal
otherwisetherewillbenoendtolitigation.Interesreipublicaeutfinissitlitiumtheveryobjectofwhichthecourtswere
constitutedwastoputanendtocontroversies.15Tofulfillthispurposeandtodosospeedily,certaintimelimits,moreorless
arbitrary,havetobesetuptospurontheslothful.16Theonlyinstancewhereapartyinterestedinaprobateproceedingmay
haveafinalliquidationsetasideiswhenheisleftoutbyreasonofcircumstancesbeyondhiscontrolorthroughmistakeor
inadvertencenotimputabletonegligence,17whichcircumstancesdonotconcurherein.

Petitioner was privy to the suit calling for the declaration of the intrinsic invalidity of the will, as she precisely
appealedfromanunfavorableordertherefrom.AlthoughthefinalandexecutoryOrderofJanuary30,1986wherein
private respondents were declared as the only heirs do not bind those who are not parties thereto such as the
allegedillegitimatesonofthetestator,thesameconstitutesresjudicatawithrespecttothosewhowerepartiesto
the probate proceedings. Petitioner cannot again raise those matters anew for relitigation otherwise that would
amount to forumshopping. It should be remembered that forum shopping also occurs when the same issue had
alreadybeenresolvedadverselybysomeothercourt.18ItisclearfromtheexecutoryorderthattheestatesofAlejandro
andhisspouseshouldbedistributedaccordingtothelawsofintestatesuccession.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/dec1999/gr_108581_1999.html

2/4

8/29/2016

G.R. No. 108581

PetitionerpositsthattheJanuary30,1986Orderismerelyinterlocutory,henceitcanstillbesetasidebythetrial
court.Insupportthereof,petitionerarguesthat"anordermerelydeclaringwhoareheirsandthesharestowhichset
of heirs is entitled cannot be the basis of execution to require delivery of shares from one person to another
particularlywhennoprojectofpartitionhasbeenfiled." 19ThetrialcourtdeclaredintheJanuary30,1986Orderthat
petitionerisnotthelegalwifeofAlejandro,whoseonlyheirsarehisthreelegitimatechildren(petitionersherein),andatthe
sametimeitnullifiedthewill.ButitshouldbenotedthatinthesameOrder,thetrialcourtalsosaidthattheestateofthelate
spousesbedistributedaccordingtothelawsofintestacy.Accordingly,ithasnooptionbuttoimplementthatorderofintestate
distributionandnottoreopenandagainreexaminetheintrinsicprovisionsofthesamewill.

ItcanbeclearlyinferredfromArticle960oftheCivilCode,onthelawofsuccessionalrightsthattestacyispreferred
to intestacy. 20 But before there could be testate distribution, the will must pass the scrutinizing test and safeguards
providedbylawconsideringthatthedeceasedtestatorisnolongeravailabletoprovethevoluntarinessofhisactions,aside
from the fact that the transfer of the estate is usually onerous in nature and that no one is presumed to give Nemo
praesumiturdonare.21Nointestatedistributionoftheestatecanbedoneuntilandunlessthewillhadfailedtopassbothits
extrinsic and intrinsic validity. If the will is extrinsically void, the rules of intestacy apply regardless of the intrinsic validity
thereof.Ifitisextrinsicallyvalid,thenexttestistodetermineitsintrinsicvaliditythatiswhethertheprovisionsofthewill
arevalidaccordingtothelawsofsuccession.Inthiscase,thecourthadruledthatthewillofAlejandrowasextrinsicallyvalid
buttheintrinsicprovisionsthereofwerevoid.Thus,therulesofintestacyapplyascorrectlyheldbythetrialcourt.

Furthermore, Alejandro's disposition in his will of the alleged share in the conjugal properties of his late spouse,
whom he described as his "only beloved wife", is not a valid reason to reverse a final and executory order.
Testamentarydispositionsofpropertiesnotbelongingexclusivelytothetestatororpropertieswhicharepartofthe
conjugalregimecannotbegiveneffect.Matterswithrespecttowhoownsthepropertiesthatweredisposedofby
Alejandro in the void will may still be properly ventilated and determined in the intestate proceedings for the
settlementofhisandthatofhislatespouse'sestate.
Petitioner'smotionforappointmentasadministratrixisrenderedmootconsideringthatshewasnotmarriedtothe
lateAlejandroand,therefore,isnotanheir.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIEDandthedecisionappealedfromisAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,Puno,KapunanandPardo,JJ.,concur.
Footnotes

1Annex"A"ofPetitionRollo,pp.1920.
2 Court of Appeals resolution dated January 11, 1989 reads: "For failure of appellant to file brief within the
extended period, the appeal interposed in this case is dismissed pursuant to Section 1 (f), Rule 50 of the
RulesofCourt."(Rollo,p.20).
3Mrs.CresildSolimanandZaldyAdalin.
4Manolov.Paredes,47Phil.938:InReEstateofJohnson,39Phil.156,citedinDeLaCernav.Rebaca
Potot,12SCRA576.
5 Lopez v. Gonzales, 10 SCRA 167 Mercado v. Santos, 66 Phil. 215 Manahan v. Manahan, 58 Phil. 448
Riera v. Palmanori, 40 Phil. 105: In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156 Austria v. Ventinilla, 27 Phil. 180
Montaov.Suesa,14Phil.676ChiongJocSoyv.Vao,8Phil.119.
6Mercadov.Paredes,47Phil.938.
7Ajerov.CA,236SCRA488Acainv.CA,155SCRA100Pastorv.CA,122SCRA85.
8Vda.deKilaykov.Tengco,207SCRA600.
9 Sec. 1, Rule 75, Rules of Court Nepomuceno v. CA, 139 SCRA 206 Cayetano v. Leonidas, 129 SCRA
522Maningv.CA,114SCRA478Nuguidv.Nuguid,17SCRA449.
10Mercadov.Santos,66Phil.215.
11Art.796798oftheCivilCode.
12EstateofHilarioM.Ruizv.CA,252SCRA541Maninang,et.al.v.CA,114SCRA473Coronadov.CA,
191SCRA814.SeealsoCasteadav.Alemany,3Phil.426.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/dec1999/gr_108581_1999.html

3/4