CYNTHIA ALABAN V. CA
That they are not parties to the case and
Note: Procedural case to. To obtain a reopening (I think
cinonsider to ng court na annulment of judgment) of the you
have to prove that you were in no position to avail the
remedies of MR, MNT, appeal through no fault of your own. Di
sinabi sa case pero as far as I can remember, ganito yun.
FACTS:
1. Respondent filed a petition for the probate of the last
will and testament of Soledad. He alleged that he was
the heir of the decedent and the executor of her will.
2. RTC allowed the probate of t he will and directed the
issuance of the letters testamentary to respondent.
3. 4 months later, petitioners filed a motion for the
reopening of the probate proceedings alleging that:
a. They are the intestate heirs of the decedent;
b. That respondent and petitioners had a meeting
before the probate of the will, them having
agreed on a specific portion.
4. RTC denied the petition.
5. CA: denied the petition. It found that there was no
showing that petitioners failed to avail of or resort to
the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for
relief from judgment, or other appropriate remedies
through no fault of their own. Moreover, the CA
declared as baseless petitioners claim that the
proceedings in the RTC was attended by extrinsic
fraud.
6. a Petitioners maintain that they were not made parties
to the case in which the decision sought to be annulled
was rendered and, thus, they could not have availed of
the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for
relief from judgment and other appropriate remedies,
contrary to the ruling of the CA.
a. They aver that respondents offer of a false
compromise and his failure to notify them of the
probate of the will constitute extrinsic fraud that
necessitates the annulment of the RTCs
judgment.
b.
therefore, cannot avail the remedies of MR,
MNT, and Relief of judgment.
ISSUE:
1. WON the petitioners are parties to the case and
therefore can avail of the said remedies?
2. Assuming that the action is allowed, WON there was
extrinsic fraud (requirement) that allows for the action
to prosper?
HELD:
First issue: YES
1. 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.
2. Notice of the time and place for proving the will must
be published for three 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.
a. Thus, it has been held that a proceeding
for the probate of a will is one in rem, such
that with the corresponding publication of
the petition the court's jurisdiction
extends to all persons interested in said
will or in the settlement of the estate of
the decedent.
3. Publication is notice to the whole world that the
proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who
might be minded to make an objection of any sort
against the right sought to be established. It is the
publication of such notice that brings in the whole
world as a party in the case and vests the court with
jurisdiction to hear and decide it.
a. Thus, even though petitioners were not
mentioned in the petition for probate, they
eventually became parties thereto as a
consequence of the publication of the notice of
hearing.
 4. As parties to the probate proceedings, petitioners
could have validly availed of the remedies of motion
for new trial or reconsideration and petition for relief
from judgment.
5. Conceding that petitioners became aware of the
Decision after it had become final, they could have still
filed a petition for relief from judgment after the denial
of their motion to reopen
Second Issue: NO.
1. An action to annul a final judgment on the ground of
fraud lies only if the fraud is extrinsic or collateral in
character.
a. Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents
a party from having a trial or from presenting 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.
2. To sustain their allegation of extrinsic fraud, petitioners
assert that as a result of respondents deliberate
omission or concealment of their names, ages and
residences as the other heirs of the decedent in his
petition for allowance of the will, they were not notified
of the proceedings, and thus they were denied their
day in court.
3. The court held that according to the Rules, notice is
required to be personally given to known heirs,
legatees, and devisees of the testator. A perusal of the
will shows that respondent was instituted as the sole
heir of the decedent.
a. Petitioners, as nephews and nieces of the
decedent, are neither compulsory nor testate
heirs who are entitled to be notified of the
probate proceedings under the Rules.
Respondent had no legal obligation to mention
petitioners in the petition for probate, or to
personally notify them of the same.
b. The non-inclusion of petitioners names in the
petition and the alleged failure to personally
notify them of the proceedings do not constitute
extrinsic fraud.
4. Besides, assuming arguendo that petitioners are
entitled to be so notified, the purported infirmity is
cured by the publication of the notice.
ON THE ISSUE OF FORUM SHOPPING:
1. The court held that there is forum shopping because
another case was filed although in a different city
(respondent filed in Iloilo while petitioners filed in
General Santos City). Both cases have the same
contentions and issue.