GR 23915; (September, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23915 September 28, 1970
INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE EMILIO T. LOPEZ. SATURNINA M. VDA. DE LOPEZ, administratrix-appellee, vs. DAHLIA LOPEZ and ROY LOPEZ, minors, represented by their mother and natural guardian LOLITA B. BACHAR, movants-appellants.
FACTS
Saturnina M. Vda. de Lopez, the judicial administratrix of the intestate estate of the late Emilio Lopez, filed a project of partition on October 13, 1962, adjudicating the entire estate to herself and her legitimate children with the deceased. The lower court approved this project and declared the intestate proceeding terminated and closed on March 30, 1964. Seventeen days later, on April 16, 1964, the minors Dahlia and Roy Lopez, represented by their mother Lolita B. Bachar, filed a motion to reopen the proceeding. They claimed to be illegitimate children of the deceased, born from his extra-marital relations with Bachar, and sought recognition of their rights and shares in the estate. The administratrix opposed the motion, arguing the proceeding was already closed, the estate distributed, and that the proper remedy was an independent action against the distributees. The trial court denied the motion to reopen, citing that reopening was not the proper remedy under the law, and movants’ reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
1. Whether the motion to reopen the estate proceeding was filed too late.
2. Whether such motion to reopen was the proper remedy.
RULING
1. The motion to reopen was not filed too late. The order declaring the intestate proceeding closed did not become final immediately. Applying Rule 72, which makes rules in ordinary actions applicable to special proceedings, such orders become final after thirty days from notice. The motion was filed only seventeen days from the date of the closure order, thus invoked on time.
2. The motion to reopen was the proper remedy. The Supreme Court held that a judicial partition does not bind heirs who were not parties thereto. Citing precedents, the Court stated that probate courts are authorized to vacate decrees procured by fraud or to address claims of omitted heirs within a reasonable time. The proper recourse for an omitted heir claiming a right to the estate is to intervene in the open proceeding or to ask for its reopening if already closed, not to file an independent action. The order of the trial court was set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.