7/24/2014 G.R. No.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/jun1992/gr_53546_1992.html 1/10
PHILIPPINEJURISPRUDENCEFULLTEXT
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation
G.R.No.L53546June25,1992
JESUSFRAN,ETAL.vs.HON.BERNARDOLL.SALAS,ETAL.
RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION

G.R.No.L53546June25,1992
THEHEIRSOFTHELATEJESUSFRANandCARMENMEJIARODRIGUEZ,petitioners,
vs.
HON.BERNARDOLL.SALAS,CONCEPCIONMEJIAESPINAandMARIAMEJIAGANDIONGCO,respondents.

DAVIDE,JR.,J.:
ThisisapetitionforcertiorariandprohibitionunderRule65oftheRevisedRulesofCourt,withprayerforawritofpreliminary
injunction,toannulandsetaside,forhavingbeenissuedwithoutjurisdictionorwithgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingto
lackofjurisdiction,thefollowingOrdersoftherespondentJudgeinSpecialProceedingsNo.3309RofBranchVIIIofthethen
CourtofFirstInstance(nowRegionalTrialCourt)ofCebuentitled"InTheMatterofthePetitionforProbateoftheLastWilland
TestamentofRemediosMejiaVda.deTiosejo:"
1.TheOrderof26February1980settingforhearingprivaterespondents'OmnibusMotionforReconsideration
1
whichwasfiledsix(6)years,ten(10)monthsandeighteen(18)daysaftertheprobatejudgmentwas
renderedandsix(6)yearsandtwentyone(21)daysafterthetestateproceedingswasdeclaredclosed
andterminatedand
2.TheOrderof2June1980findingthesignatureofthetestatrixinthelastwillandtestamenttobeaforgery
and(a)declaringthetestatrixashavingdiedintestate(b)declaringthetestamentarydispositionsinsaidlast
willandtestamentasnullandvoid(c)settingasidetheorderdated10September1973declaringthetestate
proceedingsclosedandterminated(d)revokingtheappointmentofJesusFranasexecutorwhileappointing
respondentConcepcionM.Espinaasadministratrixand(e)orderingtheconversionoftheproceedingstoone
ofintestacy.
2
ThisOrdereffectivelyannulledandsetasidetheprobatejudgmentof13November1972.
Petitioners would also have this Court nullify all other actions of respondent Judge in said Sp. Proc. No. 3309R
restorethestatusquothereinpriortotheissuanceoftheforegoingordersandpermanentlyenjoinrespondentJudge
fromreopeningsaidproceedings.
Thefollowingfactsarenotcontroverted:
RemediosM.Vda.deTiosejo,awidow,diedon10July1972inCebuCitywithneitherdescendantsnorascendantssheleft
realandpersonalpropertieslocatedinCebuCity,OrmocCityandPuertoBello,Merida,Leyte.Earlier,on23April1972,she
executedalastwillandtestament
3
wherein she bequeathed to her collateral relatives (brothers, sisters, nephews and
nieces) all her properties, and designated Rosario Tan or, upon the latter's death, Jesus Fran, as executor to serve
withoutbond.InstrumentalwitnessestothewillwereNazarioPacquiao,AlcioDemerreandPrimoMiro.
On15July1972,JesusFranfiledapetitionwiththeCourtofFirstinstanceofCebufortheprobateofRemedios'lastwilland
testament.
4
The case was raffled to the original Branch VIII thereof which was then presided over by Judge Antonio
D.Cinco.ThepetitionallegedthatRosarioTanisnotphysicallywelland,therefore,willnotbeassumingtheposition
ofadministratrix.TansignedawaiverinfavorofJesusFranonthethirdpageofthesaidpetition.Theprobatecourt
issued an order setting the petition for hearing on 18 September 1972. Meanwhile, on 31 July 1972, the court
appointedpetitionerJesusFranasspecialadministrator.
On 10 August 1972, the private respondents, who are sisters of the deceased, filed a manifestation
5
alleging that they
needed time to study the petition because some heirs who are entitled to receive their respective shares have been
intentionallyomittedtherein,andprayingthattheybegivenampletimetofiletheiropposition,afterwhichthehearing
beresettoanotherdate.
Privaterespondentsdidnotfileanyopposition.Instead,theyfiledon18September1972a"WithdrawalofOppositiontothe
7/24/2014 G.R. No.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/jun1992/gr_53546_1992.html 2/10
AllowanceofProbate(sic)oftheWill"whereintheyexpresslymanifested,withtheir"fullknowledgeandconsentthat...they
havenoobjectionof(sic)theallowanceofthe...willofthelateRemediosMejiaVda.deTiosejo,"andthattheyhave"no
objectiontotheissuanceofletterstestamentaryinfavorofpetitioner,Dr.JesusFran."
6
Nootherpartyfiledanopposition.Thepetitionthusbecameuncontested.
Duringtheinitialhearing,petitionerFranintroducedtherequisiteevidencetoestablishthejurisdictionalfacts.
Upon a determination that the court had duly acquired jurisdiction over the uncontested petition for probate, Judge Cinco
issuedinopencourtanorderdirectingcounselforpetitionertopresentevidenceprovingtheauthenticityanddueexecution
ofthewillbeforetheClerkofCourtwhowas,accordingly,soauthorizedtoreceivethesame.
The reception of evidence by the Clerk of Court immediately followed. Petitioner Fran's first witness was Atty. Nazario R.
Pacquiao, one at the subscribing witnesses to the will. The original of the will, marked as Exhibit "F", and its English
translation,markedasExhibit"FTranslation",weresubmittedtotheClerkofCourt.
7
Petitioner Fran was the second and
alsothelastwitness.Heenumeratedthenamesofthesurvivingheirsofthedeceased.
On13November1972,theprobatecourtrenderedadecisionadmittingtoprobatethewillofthetestatrix,RemediosMejia
Vda.deTiosejo,andappointingpetitionerFranasexecutorthereof.8Thedispositiveportionofthedecisionreads:
WHEREFORE,inviewofalltheforegoing,judgmentisherebyrendereddeclaringthelastwillandtestamentof
thedeceasedRemediosMejiaVda.deTiosejomarkedasExhibitFasadmittedtoprobate.Dr.JesusFranis
hereby appointed as executor of the will. Let letters testamentary be issued in favor of Dr. Jesus Fran. The
specialadministrator'sbondputupbyDr.JesusFranasspecialadministratordulyapprovedbythisCourtshall
serveandbeconsideredastheexecutor'sbondconsideringthatthespecialadministratorandexecutorare
oneandthesameperson.
The requisite notice to creditors was issued, but despite the expiration of the period therein fixed, no claim was presented
againsttheestate.
On4January1973,petitionerFranfiledanInventoryoftheEstate
9
copies thereof were furnished each of the private
respondents.
Subsequently,aProjectofPartitionbasedonthedispositionsmadeinthewillandsignedbyallthedeviseesandlegatees,
withtheexceptionofLuisFran,RemediosC.MejiaandrespondentConcepcionM.Espina,wassubmittedbytheexecutorfor
thecourt'sapproval.
10
Saidlegateesanddeviseessubmittedcertificationswhereintheyadmitreceiptofacopyofthe
ProjectofPartitiontogetherwiththenoticeofhearing,andstatethattheyhadnoobjectiontoitsapproval.
11
Thenoticeofhearingreferredtointhesecertificationsisthe6August1973noticeissuedbytheClerkofCourtsettingthe
hearingontheProjectofPartitionfor29August1973.
12
After the hearing on the Project of Partition, the court issued its Order of 10 September 1973
13
approving the same,
declaringthepartiesthereinastheonlyheirsentitledtotheestateofRemediosMejiaVda.deTiosejo,directingthe
administrator to deliver to the said parties their respective shares and decreeing the proceedings closed. The
dispositiveportionthereofreads:
WHEREFORE,thesigners(sic)totheprojectofpartitionaredeclaredtheonly,heirsentitledtotheestatethe
project of partition submitted is ordered approved and the administrator is ordered to deliver to each one of
themtheirrespectivealiquotpartsasdistributedinthesaidprojectofpartition.Itisunderstoodthatifthereare
expensesincurredortobeincurredasexpensesofpartition,Section3ofRule90shallbefollowed.
Letthisproceedingsbenowdeclaredclosed.
SOORDERED.
Thereafter, the aforesaid Branch VIII of the Court of First Instance of Cebu was converted to a Juvenile and Domestic
RelationsCourt.OnNovember1978,byvirtueofPresidentialDecreeNo.1439,BranchXVII(DavaoCity)oftheCourtofFirst
Instance of Cebu, presided over by herein respondent Judge, was officially transferred to Cebu City and renumbered as
BranchVIII.
On1October1979,privaterespondentsfiledwiththenewBranchVIIIanOmnibusMotionforReconsiderationoftheprobate
judgmentof13November1972andtheOrderofpartitionof10September1973,insaidmotion,theyaskthecourttodeclare
theproceedingsstillopenandadmittheiroppositiontotheallowanceofthewill,
14
which they filed on 1 October 1979.
Theyallegethat:(a)theywerenotfurnishedwithacopyofthewill(b)thewillisaforgery(c)theywerenotnotified
7/24/2014 G.R. No.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/jun1992/gr_53546_1992.html 3/10
of any resolution or order on their manifestation requesting time within which to file their opposition, or of the order
authorizingtheclerkofcourttoreceivetheevidenceforthepetitioner,oroftheorderclosingtheproceedings(d)the
reception of evidence by the clerk of court was void per the ruling in Lim Tanhu vs. Ramolete
15
(e) the project of
partition contains no notice of hearing and they were not notified thereof (f) the petitioner signed the project of
partitionasadministratorandnotasexecutor,therebyprovingthatthedecedentdiedintestate(g)thepetitionerdid
notsubmitanyaccountingasrequiredbylawand(h)thepetitionerneverdistributedtheestatetothedeviseesand
legatees.
In a detailed opposition
16
to the above Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner Fran refuted all the
protestations of private respondents. Among other reasons, he stresses therein that: (a) private respondents are in
estoppeltoquestionthewillbecausetheyfiledtheirWithdrawalOfOppositionToTheAllowanceofWillwhichstates
that after thoroughly studying the petition, to which was attached a copy of the English translation of the will, they
havenoobjectiontoitsallowancetheorderdirectingtheclerkofcourttoreceivetheevidencewasdictatedinopen
courtinthepresenceofprivaterespondentsprivaterespondentMariaM.GandiongcosignedtheProjectofPartition
andprivaterespondentConcepcionM.Espinasubmittedacertificationstatingthereinthatshereceivedthenoticeof
hearing therefor and has no objection to its approval (b) except for some properties, either covered by a usufruct
under the will or agreed upon by the parties to be held in common by reason of its special circumstance, there was
an actual distribution of the estate in accordance with the Project of Partition insofar as private respondents are
concerned,theynotonlyreceivedtheirrespectiveshares,theyevenpurchasedthesharesoftheotherdevisees.To
top it all, private respondents' children, namely Rodrigo M. Gandiongco, Jr. and Victor Espina, mortgaged their
respectivesharesinfavorofabank
Notwithstandingpetitioners'objections,respondentJudgeissuedon26February1980anOrdersettingforhearingthesaid
OmnibusMotionforReconsiderationon8April1980sothat"thewitnessesandtheexhibits(maybe)properlyventilated."
17
On25March1980,petitionersfiledaMotiontoDismisstheOmnibusandtoReconsiderthe26February1980Ordersettingit
for hearing on 17 April 1980,
18
but the respondent Judge prematurely denied it for lack of merit in his Order of 31
March1980.
19
Consequently, on 8 April 1980, the instant petition was filed challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court in taking
cognizanceoftheOmnibusMotionforReconsiderationconsideringthattheprobatejudgmentandtheorderapprovingthe
Project of Partition and terminating the proceedings had long become final and had in fact been executed. Private
respondentshadlonglosttheirrighttoappealtherefrom.TheOmnibusMotionforReconsiderationcannotlikewisebetreated
asapetitionforrelieffromjudgmentforunderRule38oftheRevisedRulesofCourt,thesamemustbefiledwithinsixty(60)
days from receipt of notice of the judgment/order and within six (6) months from the date of said judgment. Therefore, this
remedycannolongerbeavailedof.
On8April1980,thedatetheinstantpetitionwasfiled,respondentJudgeproceededwiththehearingoftheOmnibusMotion
forReconsideration.HereceivedthetestimoniesofprivaterespondentsandoneRomeoO.Varena,anallegedhandwriting
expertfromthePhilippineConstabulary,whoaverredthatthesignatureofthetestatrixonthewillisaforgery.Therespondent
JudgelikewiseissuedanOrderonthesamedatestatingthatunlesshereceivedarestrainingorderfromthisCourtwithin
twenty(20)daystherefrom,hewillreopenSp.Proc.No.3309R.
On14April1980,petitionersfiledaSupplementalPetitionaskingthisCourttorestrainrespondentJudgefromreopeningthe
case.
20
IntheirvoluminousCommentsandOppositiontothepetitionandSupplementalPetition,
21
private respondents not only
amplifyingreatdetailthegroundsraisedintheirOmnibusMotionforReconsideration,theyalsosquarelyraiseforthe
firsttimethefollowingissues.
(a)TheprobatecourtneveracquiredjurisdictionoverthecasesincepetitionerJesusFranfailedtosubmitto
thecourttheoriginalofthewill.
(b)TheyweredeprivedoftheopportunitytoexaminethewillaspetitionerJesusFrandidnotattachittothe
petitionwhatwasattachedwasonlytheEnglishtranslationofthewill.
(c)EvenassumingthattheprobatejudgecouldvalidlydelegatethereceptionofevidencetotheClerkofCourt,
theproceedingbeforethelatterwouldstillbevoidashefailedtotakeanoathofofficebeforeenteringuponhis
dutiesascommissionerandfailedtorenderareportonthematterssubmittedtohim.
(d) Respondent Maria M. Vda. de Gandiongco was defrauded into (sic) signing the Project of Partition and
respondentConcepcionM.Espina,hercertification,whentheyweremisledbypetitionerFranintobelieving
thattheAgreementofPetitiontobesubmittedtothecourtistheExtraJudicialPartitiontheysignedon7May
7/24/2014 G.R. No.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/jun1992/gr_53546_1992.html 4/10
1973.
(e) Petitioner Fran is guilty of fraud in urdervaluing the estate of the late Remedios M. Vda. de Tiosejo by
reporting properties worth only P400,000.00 when in truth and in fact the estate has an aggregate value of
P2,094,333.00.
IntheResolutiondated2June1980,WeissuedarestrainingorderenjoiningrespondentJudgefromreopeningSp.Proc.No.
3309R.
22
However,onthesamedate,beforetherestrainingorderwasservedonhimrespondentJudgeissuedtheimpugnedorder
declaringthetestamentarydispositionsofthewillvoid,findingthesignatureofthelateRemediosM.Vda.deTiosejotobea
forgery,decreeingthereopeningofSp.Proc.No.3309Randconvertingthesameintoanintestateproceeding.
23
Hence,on6June1980,petitionersfiledtheirSecondSupplementalPetition
24
asking this Court to declare as null and
voidtheOrderof2June1980and,pendingsuchdeclaration,torestrainrespondentJudgefromenforcingthesame.
PrivaterespondentsfiledtheirCommentandOppositiontotheSecondSupplementalPetitionon9July1980.
Thereafter,asmandatedintheresolutionof30June1980,
25
this Court gave due course to this case and required the
partiestofiletheirrespectiveMemoranda,whichprivaterespondentscompliedwithon16August1980
26
petitioners
filed theirs on 27 August 1980.
27
Consequently, the parties continued to file several pleadings reiterating
substantiallythesameallegationsandargumentsearliersubmittedtothisCourt.
On 22 March 1984, counsel for petitioners filed a manifestation informing this Court of the death of petitioner Fran on 29
February1984andenumeratingthereinhissurvivingheirs.On2April1984,thisCourtresolvedtohavesaidheirssubstitute
himinthiscase.
Overayearlater,respondentMariaM.Vda.deGandiongcofiledanaffidavit,
28
sworn to before the acting Clerk of Court
of the Regional Trial Court in Cebu City, disclosing the following material facts: (a) she signed the Omnibus Motion
forReconsiderationdated1October1979withoutknowingorreadingthecontentsthereof(b)shesawthewillofthe
lateRemediosM.Vda.deTiosejowrittenintheCebuanodialectafterthesamewasexecutedbythelatterthesaid
will bearing the authentic signature of Remedios was the very one presented to the probate court by petitioner's
counsel (c) she received the notice of hearing of the petition for probate and because she was convinced that the
signature of the testatrix was genuine, she, together with Concepcion M. Espina, withdrew her opposition (d) she
received her share of the estate of the late Remedios M. Vda. de Tiosejo which was distributed in accordance with
theprovisionsofthelatter'swilland(e)shedidnotauthorizeAtty.NumerianoEstenzoorotherlawyerstopresenta
motion to this Court after 25 February 1981 when Estenzo withdrew as counsel for private respondents. She then
asksthisCourttoconsideraswithdrawnherOppositiontotheAllowanceoftheWill,herparticipationintheOmnibus
MotionforReconsiderationandherOppositiontothispetition.
Due to this development, We required private respondent Concepcion M. Espina to comment on the affidavit of private
respondentMariaM.Vda.deGandiongco.
On 17 August 1985, private respondents filed a joint manifestation
29
wherein they claim that Maria M. Vda. de
Gandiongcodoesnotremember,executingtheaffidavit.Afewweeksbeforetheaffidavitwasfiled,particularlyon17
June1985,MariaM.Vda.deGandiongcowasconfinedinthehospitalshecouldnotrecallhavingsigned,duringthis
period,anyaffidavitorrecognizedhersistersandotherrelatives.
On19September1985,respondentMariaM.Vda.deGandiongco,throughspecialcounsel,filedaManifestation/Motionwith
asecondAffidavitattachedthereto
30
confessingthatshesignedtheJointManifestationdated16August1985"without
knowing or being informed of its contents, and only upon Mrs. Concepcion Espina's request." She reiterated her
desire to withdraw from the Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration filed in Sp. Proc. No, 3309R as well as from the
instantpetition.
Despite the valiant attempt of private respondent Concepcion M. Espina to influence and control the action of Maria
Gandiongco,thereisnothingintherecordsthatwouldcastanydoubtontheirrevocabilityofthelatter'sdecisiontowithdraw
her participation in the Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and Opposition to this case. That decision, however, is not a
groundfordroppingherasaprivaterespondentastherespondentJudgehadalreadyissuedtheabovementionedOrderof2
June1980.
Thepetitionandthesupplementalpetitionsareimpressedwithmerit.
WedonothesitatetorulethattherespondentJudgecommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackofjurisdiction
when he granted the Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and thereafter set aside the probate judgment of 13 November
7/24/2014 G.R. No.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/jun1992/gr_53546_1992.html 5/10
1972inSp.Proc.No.3309R,declaredthesubjectwillofthetestatrixaforgery,nullifiedthetestamentarydispositionstherein
andorderedtheconversionofthetestateproceedingsintooneofintestacy.
Itisnotdisputedthatprivaterespondentsfiledonthedayoftheinitialhearingofthepetitiontheir"WithdrawalofOpposition
ToAllowanceofProbate(sic)Will"whereintheyunequivocallystatethattheyhavenoobjectiontotheallowanceofthewill.
Foralllegalintentsandpurposes,theybecameproponentsofthesame.
After the probate court rendered its decision on 13 November 1972, and there having been no claim presented despite
publicationofnoticetocreditors,petitionerFransubmittedaProjectofPartitionwhichprivaterespondentMariaM.Vda.de
GandiongcovoluntarilysignedandtowhichprivaterespondentEspinaexpressedherconformitythroughacertificationfiled
with the probate court. Assuming for the sake of argument that private respondents did not receive a formal notice of the
decisionastheyclaimintheirOmnibusMotionforReconsideration,theseactsneverthelessconstituteindubitableproofof
their prior actual knowledge of the same. A formal notice would have been an idle ceremony. In testate proceedings, a
decision logically precedes the project of partition, which is normally an implementation of the will and is among the last
operativeactstoterminatetheproceedings.Ifprivaterespondentsdidnothaveactualknowledgeofthedecision,theyshould
have desisted from performing the above acts and instead demanded from petitioner Fran the fulfillment of his alleged
promise to show them the will. The same conclusion refutes and defeats the plea that they were not notified of the order
authorizing the Clerk of Court to receive the evidence and that the Clerk of Court did not notify them of the date of the
receptionofevidence.Besides,suchpleamustfailbecauseprivaterespondentswerepresentwhenthecourtdictatedthe
saidorder.
NeitherdoWegiveanyweighttothecontentionthatthereceptionofevidencebytheClerkofCourtisnullandvoidperthe
doctrinelaid,downinLimTanhuvs.Ramolete.
31
Inthefirstplace,LimTanhu was decided on 29 August 1975, nearly
four (4) years after the probate court authorized the Clerk of Court to receive the evidence for the petitioner in this
case. A month prior to LimTanhu, or on 30 July 1975, this Court, in Laluan vs. Malpaya,
32
recognized and upheld
thepracticeofdelegatingthereceptionofevidencetoClerksofCourt.Thus:
Noprovisionoflaworprincipleofpublicpolicyprohibitsacourtfromauthorizingitsclerkofcourttoreceivethe
evidenceofapartylitigant.Afterall,thereceptionofevidencebytheclerkofcourtconstitutesbutaministerial
task the taking down of the testimony of the witnesses and the marking of the pieces of documentary
evidence,ifany,adducedbythepartypresent.Thistaskofreceivingevidenceprecludes,onthepartofthe
clerkofcourttheexerciseofjudicialdiscretionusuallycalledforwhentheotherpartywhoispresentobjectsto
questionspropoundedandtotheadmissionofthedocumentaryevidenceproffered.
33
Moreimportantly,the
dutytorenderjudgmentonthemeritsofthecasestillrestswiththejudgewhoisobligedtopersonally
anddirectlypreparethedecisionbasedupontheevidencereported.
34
But where the proceedings before the clerk of court and the concomitant result thereof, i.e., the
judgmentrenderedbythecourtbasedontheevidencepresentedinsuchlimitedproceedings,prejudice
thesubstantialrightsoftheaggrievedparty,thenthereexists,sufficientjustificationtograntthelatter
completeopportunitytothreshouthiscaseincourt.
35
Monserratevs.CourtofAppeals,
36
decidedon29September1989,reiteratedthisrule.LimTanhuthencannotbeused
asauthoritytonullifytheorderoftheprobatecourtauthorizingtheClerkofCourttoreceivetheevidencefortherule
issettledthat"whenadoctrineofthisCourtisoverruledandadifferentviewisadopted,thenewdoctrineshouldbe
applied prospectively, and should not apply to parties who had relied on the old doctrine and acted on the faith
thereof."
37
It may also be emphasized in this connection that Lim Tanhu did not live long it was subsequently
overruled in Gochangco vs. Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental,
38
wherein this Court, en banc, through
Justice, now Chief Justice, Andres R. Narvasa, in reference to what the trial court termed as "the doctrinal rule laid
downintherecentcaseofLimTanHu(sic)vs.Ramolete,"ruled:
Now,thatdeclarationdoesnotreflectlongobservedandestablishedjudicialpracticewithrespecttodefault
cases.Itisnotquiteconsistent,too,withtheseveralexplicitlyauthorizedinstancesundertheRuleswherethe
functionofreceivingevidenceandevenofmakingrecommendatoryfindingsoffactsonthebasisthereofmay
bedelegatedtocommissioners,inclusiveoftheClerkofCourt.TheseinstancesaresetoutinRule33,...
Rule67and69,...Rule86,...Rule136,....Inalltheseinstances,thecompetenceoftheclerkofcourtis
assumed. Indeed, there would seem, to be sure, nothing intrinsically wrong in allowing presentation of
evidenceexparte before a Clerk of Court. Such a procedure certainly does not foreclose relief to the party
adverselyaffectedwho,forvalidcauseanduponappropriateandseasonableapplication,maybringaboutthe
undoingthereofortheeliminationofprejudicetherebycausedtohimanditis,afterall,theCourtitselfwhichis
dutyboundandhastheultimateresponsibilitytopassupontheevidencereceivedinthismanner,discarding
intheprocesssuchproofsasareincompetentandthendeclarewhatfactshavetherebybeenestablished.In
considering and analyzing the evidence preparatory to rendition of judgment on the merits, it may not
unreasonablybeassumedthatanyseriouserrorintheexpartepresentationofevidence,prejudicialtoany
7/24/2014 G.R. No.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/jun1992/gr_53546_1992.html 6/10
absentparty,willbedetectedanddulyremediedbytheCourt,and/ormayalways,inanyevent,bedrawntoits
attentionbyanyinterestedparty.
xxxxxxxxx
ItwasthereforeerrorfortheCourtaquotohavedeclaredthejudgmentbydefaulttobefatallyflawedbythe
factthattheplaintiff'sevidencehadbeenreceivednotbytheJudgehimselfbutbytheclerkofcourt.
ThealternativeclaimthattheproceedingsbeforetheClerkofCourtwerelikewisevoidbecausesaidofficialdidnottakean
oathislikewiseuntenable.TheClerkofCourtactedassuchwhenheperformedthedelegatedtaskofreceivingevidence.It
wasnotnecessaryforhimtotakeanoathforthatpurposehewasboundbyhisoathofofficeasaClerkofCourt.Private
respondentsareobviouslyoftheimpressionthatbythedelegationofthereceptionofevidencetotheClerkofCourt,thelatter
becameacommissionerasdefinedunderRule33oftheRulesofCourtentitledTrialbyCommissioner.Thisisnotcorrectas
thisCourtsaidinLaluan:
TheprovisionsofRule33oftheRulesofCourtinvokedbybothpartiesproperlyrelatetothereferencebya
court of any or all of the issues in a case to a person so commissioned to act or report thereon. These
provisionsexplicitlyspellouttherulesgoverningtheconductofthecourt,thecommissioner,andtheparties
before, during, and after the reference proceedings. Compliance with these rules of conduct becomes
imperative only when the court formally orders a reference of the case to a commissioner. Strictly speaking
then,theprovisionsofRule33findnoapplicationtothecaseatbarwherethecourtaquomerelydirectedthe
clerkofcourttotakedownthetestimonyofthewitnessespresentedandtomarkthedocumentaryevidence
proferredonadatepreviouslysetforhearing.
Belatedlyrealizingtheabsenceofsubstanceoftheabovegrounds,privaterespondentsnowclaimintheirCommentstothe
Petition and the Supplemental Petition that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the petition because only the
Englishtranslationofthewillandnotacopyofthesamewasattachedtothepetitionthewillwasnotevensubmittedto
the court for their examination within twenty (20) days after the death of the testatrix and that there was fraud in the
procurement of the probate judgment principally because they were not given any chance to examine the signature of the
testatrixandweremisledintosigningthewithdrawaloftheiroppositionontheassuranceofpetitionerFranandtheirsister,
RosarioM.Tan,thatthewillwouldbeshowntothemduringthetrial.Thesetwogroundseasilyserveasthebasesforthe
postulationthatthedecisionisnullandvoidandso,therefore,theiromnibusmotionbecameallthemoretimelyandproper.
ThecontentionsdonotimpressthisCourt.
InSantosvs.Castillo
39
and Salazar vs. Court of First Instance of Laguna,
40
decided six (6) months apart in 1937,
this Court already ruled that it is not necessary that the original of the will be attached to the petition. In the first, it
ruled: "The original of said document [the will] must be presented or sufficient reasons given to justify the
nonpresentation of said original and the acceptance of the copy or duplicate thereof."
41
In the second case, this
Courtwasmoreemphaticinholdingthat:
Thelawissilentastothespecificmannerofbringingthejurisdictionalallegationsbeforethecourt,butpractice
andjurisprudencehaveestablishedthattheyshouldbemadeintheformofanapplicationandfiledwiththe
originalofthewillattachedthereto.Ithasbeenthepracticeinsomecourtstopermitattachmentofamerecopy
ofthewilltotheapplication,withoutprejudicetoproducingtheoriginalthereofatthehearingorwhenthecourt
so requires. This precaution has been adopted by some attorneys to forestall its disappearance, which has
takenplaceincertaincases.
42
ThattheannexingoftheoriginalwilltothepetitionisnotajurisdictionalrequirementisclearlyevidentinSection1,Rule76of
theRulesofCourtwhichallowsthefilingofapetitionforprobatebythepersonnamedthereinregardlessofwhetherornothe
isinpossessionofthewill,orthesameislostordestroyed.Thesectionreadsinfullasfollows:
Sec.1.Whomaypetitionfortheallowanceofwill.Anyexecutor,devisee,orlegateenamedinawill,orany
otherpersoninterestedintheestate,may,atanytimeafterthedeathofthetestator,petitionthecourthaving
jurisdictiontohavethewillallowed,whetherthesamebeinhispossessionornot,orislostordestroyed.
Intheinstantcase,acopyoftheoriginalwillanditsEnglishtranslationwereattachedtothepetitionasAnnex"A"andAnnex
"A1",respectively,andmadeintegralpartsofthesame.ItistobepresumedthatuponthefilingofthepetitiontheClerkof
Court,orhisdulyauthorizedsubordinate,examinedthepetitionandfoundthattheannexesmentionedwereinfactattached
thereto.Iftheywerenot,thepetitioncannotbesaidtohavebeenproperlypresentedandtheClerkofCourtwouldnothave
accepted it for docketing. Under Section 6, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court, the Clerk of Court shall receive and file all
pleadingsandotherpapersproperlypresented,endorsingoneachsuchpaperthetimewhenitwasfiled.Thepresumptionof
regularityintheperformanceofofficialdutymilitatesagainstprivaterespondents'claimthatAnnex"A"ofthepetitionwasnot
infactattachedthereto.
7/24/2014 G.R. No.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/jun1992/gr_53546_1992.html 7/10
ThecertificationoftheAssistantClerkofCourtissuedon8April
1980,
43
or SIX (6) months after the filing of the motion for reconsideration, to the effect that as per examination of
therecordsofSp.Proc.No.3309R,"thecopyoftheWillmentionedinthepetitionasAnnex"A"isnotfoundtobe
attached as of this date in the said petition only the English Translation of said Will is attached thereof (sic) as
Annex"A1"doesnotevensavethedayforprivaterespondents.Itisnotconclusivebecauseitfailstostatethefact
thatashereaftershown,thepagesoftherecordswhichcorrespondtothefour(4)pagesofAnnex"A"weremissing
or were detached therefrom. As emphatically asserted by the petitioners in their Reply to the Comments of private
respondents,
44
duly supported by a certification of the former Clerk of Court of the original Branch VIII of the court
below,
45
and which private respondents merely generally denied in their motion for reconsideration with comments
and opposition to consolidated reply,
46
the fourpage xerox copy of will, marked as Annex "A" of the petition,
became, as properly marked by the personnel of the original Branch VIII of the court below upon the filing of the
petition,pages5,6,7and8whilethetranslationthereof,markedasAnnex"A1",becamepages9,10,11and12of
therecords.Themarkingsweredoneinlonghand.TherecordsofthecasewerethereaftersenttotheClerkofCourt,
14thJudicialDistrict,CebuCityon9February1978.Theserecords,nowinthepossessionoftherespondentJudge,
showthatsaidpages5,6,7and8inlongaremissing.Asaconsequencethereof,petitionersfiledwiththeExecutive
Judgeofthecourtbelowanadministrativecomplaint.
ItisnotlikewisedisputedthattheoriginalofthewillwassubmittedinevidenceandmarkedasExhibit"F".Itformspartofthe
recordsofthespecialproceedingsafactwhichprivaterespondentsadmitintheirOmnibusMotionforReconsideration,
thus:
9. That an examination of the alleged will of our deceased sister has revealed that the signatures at the left
handmarginofExhibit"F",arewrittenby(sic)differentpersonthanthesignatureappearingatthebottomof
saidallegedwill...
47
The availability of the will since 18 September 1972 for their examination renders completely baseless the private
respondents'claimoffraudonpetitionerFran'spartinsecuringthewithdrawaloftheiroppositiontotheprobateofthewill.If
indeedsuchwithdrawalwasconditioneduponFran'spromisethattheprivaterespondentswouldbeshownthewillduringthe
trial,whyweren'ttheappropriatestepstakenbythelattertoconfrontFranaboutthispromisebeforecertificationsofconformity
totheprojectofpartitionwerefiled?
Grantingforthesakeofargumentthatthenonfulfillmentofsaidpromiseconstitutesfraud,suchfraudisnotofthekindwhich
providessufficientjustificationforamotionforreconsiderationorapetitionforrelieffromjudgmentunderRule37andRule
38,respectively,oftheRulesofCourt,orevenaseparateactionforannulmentofjudgment.Itissettledthatforfraudtobe
investedwith,sufficiency,itmustbeextrinsicorcollateraltothemattersinvolvedintheissuesraisedduringthetrialwhich
resultedinsuchjudgment.
48
InOurjurisdiction,thefollowingcoursesofactionareopentoanaggrievedpartytosetasideorattackthevalidityofafinal
judgment:
(1)PetitionforreliefunderRule38oftheRulesofCourtwhichmustbefiledwithinsixty(60)daysafterlearning
ofthedecision,butnotmorethansix(6)monthsaftersuchdecisionisentered
(2)Bydirectaction,viaaspecialcivilactionforcertiorari,orbycollateralattack,assumingthatthedecisionis
voidforwantofjurisdiction
(3) By an independent civil action under Article 1114 of the Civil Code, assuming that the decision was
obtainedthroughfraudandRule38cannotbeapplied.
49
Itisnotdifficulttoseethatprivaterespondentshadlosttheirrighttofileapetitionforrelieffromjudgment,itappearingthat
theiromnibusmotionforreconsiderationwasfiledexactlysix(6)years,ten(10)monthsandtwentytwo(22)daysafterthe
renditionofthedecision,andsix(6)years,one(1)monthandthirteen(13)daysafterthecourtissuedtheorderapprovingthe
ProjectofPartition,towhichtheyvoluntarilyexpressedtheirconformitythroughtheirrespectivecertifications,andclosingthe
testateproceedings.
Privaterespondentsdidnotavailoftheothertwo(2)modesofattack.
Theprobatejudgmentof13November1972,longfinalandundisturbedbyanyattempttounsettleit,hadinevitablypassed
beyondthereachofthecourtbelowtoannulorsetthesameaside,bymeremotion,onthegroundthatthewillisaforgery.
Settled is the rule that the decree of probate is conclusive with respect to the due execution of the will and it cannot be
impugnedonanyofthegroundsauthorizedbylaw,exceptthatoffraud,inanyseparateorindependentactionorproceeding.
50
We wish also to advert to the related doctrine which holds that final judgments are entitled to respect and should
notbedisturbedotherwise,therewouldbeawaveringoftrustinthecourts.
51
InLee Bun Ting vs. Aligaen,
52
this
7/24/2014 G.R. No.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/jun1992/gr_53546_1992.html 8/10
Courthadtheoccasiontostatetherationaleofthisdoctrine,thus:
Reasonsofpublicpolicy,judicialorderliness,economyandjudicialtimeandtheinterestsoflitigants,aswell
asthepeaceandorderofsociety,allrequirethatstabilitybeaccordedthesolemnandfinaljudgmentsofthe
courtsortribunalsofcompetentjurisdiction.
Thisissoevenifthedecisionisincorrect
53
or,incriminalcases,thepenaltyimposediserroneous.
54
Equallybaselessandunmeritoriousisprivaterespondents'contentionthattheorderapprovingtheProjectofPartitionand
closingtheproceedingsisnullandvoidbecausetheProjectofPartitiondidnotcontainanoticeofhearingandthattheywere
not notified of the hearing thereon. In truth, in her own certification
55
dated 5 September 1973, private respondent
ConcepcionM.Espinaadmittedthatshe"receivedacopyoftheProjectofPartitionandtheNoticeofHearinginthe
aboveentitledproceeding,andthatshehasnoobjectiontotheapprovalofthesaidProjectofPartition."Thenotice
ofhearingshereferredtoistheNoticeofHearingForApprovalofProjectofPartitionissuedon6August1973bythe
ClerkofCourt.
56
PrivaterespondentEspinawaslyingthroughherteethwhensheclaimedotherwise.
The nondistribution of the estate, which is vigorously denied by the petitioners, is not a ground for the reopening of the
testateproceedings.Aseasonablemotionforexecutionshouldhavebeenfiled.InDeJesusvs.
Daza,
57
thisCourtruledthatiftheexecutororadministratorhaspossessionofthesharetobedelivered,theprobate
courtwouldhavejurisdictionwithinthesameestateproceedingtoorderhimtotransferthatpossessiontotheperson
entitled thereto. This is authorized under Section 1, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court. However, if no motion for
execution is filed within the reglementary period, a separate action for the recovery of the shares would be in order.
As We see it, the attack of 10 September 1973 on the Order was just a clever ploy to give asemblance of strength
andsubstancetotheOmnibusMotionforReconsiderationbydepictingthereinaprobatecourtcommittingaseriesof
fatal,substantiveandproceduralblunders,whichWefindtobeimaginary,ifnotdeliberatelyfabricated.
WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionandsupplementalpetitionsareGRANTED.TheOrderofrespondentJudgeof2June1980
andallotherordersissuedbyhiminSp.Proc.No.3309R,aswellasallotherproceedingshadthereininconnectionwithor
inrelationtotheOmnibusMotionforReconsideration,areherebyANNULLEDandSETASIDE.
Therestrainingorderissuedon2June1980isherebymadePERMANENT.
CostsagainstprivaterespondentConcepcionM.Espina.
SOORDERED.
Gutierrez,Jr.,BidinandRomero,JJ.,concur.
Feliciano,J.,tooknopart.

Footnotes
1Rollo,13.
2Rollo,475486.
3Id.,370373.
4Rollo,1416.
5Id.,1819.
6Rollo,20.
7Xeroxcopiesthereofareonpages370373and388391ofRollo.
8Rollo,394403.
9Annex"J"toConsolidatedReplytoRespondents'Comment,etc.Id.,410415.
10Id.,2126.
11Rollo,2729.Morespecifically,privaterespondentConcepcionEspina'scertification,dated5September
1973, reads: "The undersigned, legatee and heir of the deceased Remedios Mejia vda. de Tiosejo, hereby
7/24/2014 G.R. No.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/jun1992/gr_53546_1992.html 9/10
certify(sic)thatshereceivedacopyoftheProjectofPartitionandtheNoticeofHearingintheaboveentitled
proceeding,andthatshehasnoobjectiontotheapprovalofthesaidProjectofPartition.
12Annex"H"toConsolidatedReplytoRespondents'Comment,etc.Id.,406.
13Id.,2829.
14Rollo,3036.
1566SCRA425[1975].
16Rollo,3750.
17Rollo,13.
18Id.,5178.
19Id.,81.
20Rollo,8795.
21Id.,119157240290.
22Rollo,320.
23Id.,474486.
24Id.,459472.
25Rollo,449.
26Id.,779971.
27Id.,9851027.
28Id.,13691370,withtheEnglishtranslationat13711372.
29Rollo,13751376.
30Rollo.14251430.
31Supra.
3265SCRA494[1975].
33CitingWackWackGolfandCountryClub,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals,106Phil.501[1959].
34CitingTheProvinceofPangasinanvs.Palisoc,6SCRA299[1962].
35Atpages499500.
36178SCRA153.[1989].
37Peoplevs.Jabinal,55SCRA607[1974].
38157SCRA40[1988].
3964Phil.211[1937].
4064Phil.785[1937].
41Underscoringsuppliedforemphasis.
42Underscoringsuppliedforemphasis.
43Annex"1"ofCommentsRollo,158.
44Rollo,255,etseq.
45Annex"C"oftheReply.
7/24/2014 G.R. No.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1992/jun1992/gr_53546_1992.html 10/10
46Rollo,op.cit.,624,etseq.
47Rollo,3132.
48Anuranvs.Aquino,38Phil.29[1918]Garchitorenavs.Sotelo,74Phil.25[1942]Ramosvs.Albano,92
Phil.834[1953].
49Anuranvs.Aquino,supra.BancoEspaolFilipinovs.Palanca,37Phil.921[1918]Garchitorenavs.Sotelo,
supra.Santiagovs.Ceniza,5SCRA494[1962].
50Manahanvs.Manahan,58Phil.448,451[1933],citingseveralcases.
51Yusecovs.CourtofAppeals,68SCRA484[1975]SanJuanvs.Cuento,160SCRA277[1988].
5276SCRA416[1977],seealsoTurquezavs.Hernando,97SCRA483[1980].
53Balaisvs.Balais,159SCRA37[1988]SanJuanvs.Cuento,supra.
54Castillovs.Donato,137SCRA210[1985]Icaovs.Apalisok,180SCRA680[1989].
55Annex"F"ofPetitionRollo,27.
56Id.,501.
5777Phil.152[1946]seealsoTorresvs.Encarnacion,89Phil.678[1951].
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation