Ynares-Santiago, J
FACTS:
·
Aniceta Reyes died in 1969
without her estate being settled. Her husband, Alejandro Dorotheo, died
thereafter.
·
In 1977, Lourdes Legaspi (aka
as Lourdes Dorotheo, the live-in partner of Alejandro) filed a special
proceeding for the probate of Alejandro's last will and testament, alleging
that she took care of Alejandro before he died. In 1981, the lower court
admitted said will to probate. This was not opposed by herein respondents, the
legitimate children of Aniceta and Alejandro.
·
In 1983, Aniceta and
Alejandro's legitimate children filed a Motion to Declare the Will
Intrinsically Void on account of the fact that Lourdes was not married to
Alejandro and was therefore not considered an heir. The trial court granted the
motion.
·
Lourdes filed a motion for
reconsideration, arguing that she was 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. The lower court denied her motion. She then appealed
before the CA, but the same was dismissed for her failure to file appellant's
brief within the extended period granted. Subsequently, the CA order became
final and executory. This was followed by a writ of execution issued by the
lower court to implement the final and executory order. But herein respondents
still had to file several motions including a motion to compel Lourdes to
surrender to them the Transfer Certificates of Titles (TCT) covering the
properties of the late Alejandro. When Lourdes refused to surrender the TCTs,
the respondents filed a motion for cancellation of said titles and for issuance
of new titles in their names. Lourdes opposed the motion.
·
In 1990, the lower court
presided by Judge Angas issued an order to set aside the final and executory CA
order and the attendant writ of execution. The judge argued that the order was
merely interlocutory, hence not final in character.
·
Expectedly, the respondents
filed a motion for reconsideration, which Judge Angas denied. They then
elevated their appeal before the CA, which nullified the orders of Judge Angas
and upheld the validity of the prior final and executory CA order.
·
Hence, this petition for
review by Lourdes..
RULING:
Whether a
judgment on a probated will that has attained finality still subject to
reversal? – NO.
·
A final and executory decision or order can no
longer be disturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous it may be. In setting
aside the 1986 Order that has attained finality, Judge Angas of the trial court
in effect nullified the entry of judgment made by the CA. It is well settled
that a lower court cannot reverse or set aside decisions or orders of a
superior court, for to do so would be to negate the hierarchy of courts and
nullify the essence of review. It has been ruled that a final judgment on
probated will, albeit erroneous, is binding on the whole world.
·
If no appeal is taken in due time from a
judgment or order of the trial court, the same attains finality by mere lapse
of time. Thus, the order allowing the will became final and the question
determined by the court in such order can no longer be raised anew, either in
the same proceedings or in a different motion. The matters of due execution of
the will and the capacity of the testator acquired the character of res
judicata and cannot again be brought into question, all juridical questions in
connection therewith being for once and forever closed. Such final order makes
the will conclusive against the whole world as to its extrinsic validity and
due execution.
On extrinsic and intrinsic validity of wills
·
Probate proceedings deals generally with the
extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated,[7] particularly on four
aspects: (a) whether the will submitted is indeed, the decedents last will and
testament; (b) compliance with the prescribed formalities for the execution of
wills; (c) the testamentary capacity of the testator; (d) and the due execution
of the last will and testament.
·
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. 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, the unlawful provisions/dispositions thereof cannot be
given effect. This is specially so when the courts had already determined in a
final and executory decision that the will is intrinsically void. Such
determination having attained that character of finality is binding on this
Court which will no longer be disturbed.
Whether
the final and executory CA order is erroneous. – THE SC CANNOT REEVALUATE THE
MERITS OF A CASE THAT HAS ATTAINED FINALITY.
·
The SC seems to be saying that Lourdes has a
point and that the subject will may in fact be intrinsically valid, but it
can't make a final determination because: A final and executory decision of
which the party had the opportunity to challenge before the higher tribunals
must stand and should no longer be reevaluated. Failure to avail of the
remedies provided by law constitutes waiver. And if the party does not avail of
other remedies despite its belief that it was aggrieved by a decision or court
action, then it is deemed to have fully agreed and is satisfied with the
decision or order.
·
Public policy and sound practice demand that,
at the risk of occasional errors, judgments of courts must at some point of
time fixed by law become final otherwise there will be no end to litigation.
Interes rei publicae ut finis sit litium - the very object of which the courts
were constituted was to put an end to controversies. To fulfill this purpose
and to do so speedily, certain time limits, more or less arbitrary, have to be
set up to spur on the slothful. 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.
Whether
the order declaring Alejandro's will to be intrisically invalid merely
interlocutory. – NO.
·
Lourdes posits that said order is merely
interlocutory, therefore it can still be set aside by the trial court. She
argues that an order merely declaring who are heirs and the shares to which set
of heirs is entitled cannot be the basis of execution to require delivery of
shares from one person to another particularly when no project of partition has
been filed.
·
But the SC noted that in the same Order, the
trial court also said that the estate of the late spouses be distributed
according to the laws of intestacy, given that Lourdes is not the legal wife.
Accordingly, it has no option but to implement that order of intestate
distribution and not to reopen and again re-examine the intrinsic provisions of
the same will.
·
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. Therefore, it is Alejandro's
children, not Lourdes (who, legally, is a mere stranger to Alejandro), who
should be considered heirs.