G.R. No. 108581

LOURDES L.
DOROTHEO
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, NILDA D. QUINTANA, for Herself and as
Attorney-in-Fact of VICENTE DOROTHEO and JOSE
DOROTHEO
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?
Ruling:
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: (1) whether the will submitted is indeed, the decedent's last
will and testament; (2) compliance with the prescribed formalities for
the execution of wills; (3) the testamentary capacity of the testator;
andthe 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. 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.

G.R. No. 108581

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 108581

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 108581

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LOURDES L.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration arguing that she is entitled

An Order was issued on November 29, 1990 setting aside the

Under the Civil Code, due execution includes a determination of

The intrinsic validity is another matter and questions regarding

It can be clearly inferred from Article 960 of the Civil Code, on

You might also like