G.R. No. L-19399 July 31, 1965
RUFINO COLOMA and TIMOTEO COLOMA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ATANACIO COLOMA, MAMERTO COLOMA and CALIXTO COLOMA, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiffs-appellants Rufino Coloma and Timoteo Coloma filed a complaint for partition of thirteen parcels of land left by their uncle, Agapito Geronimo, who died intestate on March 19, 1949. They alleged that as Agapito’s only heirs (being children of his predeceased sister, Leocadia Geronimo), they and their brother, defendant-appellee Atanacio Coloma, became pro indiviso owners, tilled the lands together, and shared the harvests equally until 1953 when Atanacio and his sons (the other appellees) excluded them. In 1958, the appellees presented a document they claimed was Agapito’s last will, devising the properties to them and other relatives, excluding the appellants. Appellants alleged no will was ever probated and no adjudication of the properties was made. They prayed for partition and shares of the produce from 1955.
Defendants-appellees moved to dismiss, asserting appellants had no cause of action as they were not heirs or co-owners because Agapito died testate, and his will had been duly probated in Special Proceedings No. 3204 by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, wherein appellants were not named as devisees.
Appellants opposed the motion and filed an amended complaint without leave of court. They alleged they only learned of Special Proceedings No. 3204 from the motion to dismiss. They claimed the probate order was null and void because Agapito did not execute a will, the court lacked jurisdiction due to improper notice to all known heirs as required by Rule 77, Section 4, and publication was in a newspaper not of general circulation in Ilocos Norte. They prayed for the annulment of the probate proceedings and for partition of the lands equally among themselves and Atanacio.
The trial court dismissed the case, finding that Agapito Geronimo died testate; his will was probated in Special Proceedings No. 3204; an order dated September 16, 1960, admitted the will to probate and declared specific persons (including the appellees) as instituted heirs; and a deed of partition was approved on March 3, 1961. The court ruled the probate order was final and binding. It held appellants, as mere collateral heirs (nephews) and not forced heirs, were not entitled to notice under Rule 77, Section 4, as they were not named in the will. Citing Article 766 of the Civil Code and the Gutierrez del Campo vs. Varela Calderon case, the court stated a voluntary heir who predeceases the testator transmits nothing. It concluded the judgment in the special proceedings was binding on all the world, including the appellants, and thus the action was barred by res judicata.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint on the ground of res judicata, i.e., that the present action for partition and annulment of probate proceedings is barred by the final judgment in Special Proceedings No. 3204 which probated the will of Agapito Geronimo and distributed his estate.

RULING

Yes, the trial court correctly dismissed the case on the ground of res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal.
The probate proceeding (Special Proceedings No. 3204) was a proceeding in rem. The publication of the notice of hearing constituted constructive notice to the whole world, including the appellants. The judgment rendered therein, which admitted the will to probate and distributed the estate to the instituted heirs, is binding upon everybody. The requirements for res judicata are present: (1) the probate court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (2) the judgment or orders were rendered on the merits after due hearing; (3) there is identity of parties (the proceedings being in rem, they bound the appellants); (4) there is identity of subject matter (the properties of Agapito Geronimo); and (5) there is identity of causes of action or issues (the validity of the will, the regularity of the probate proceedings, and the determination of the rightful heirs).
The appellants, being mere collateral heirs (nephews) and not forced heirs of the testator, have no legal right to any part of the estate that the testator validly disposed of by will. Since they were not instituted as heirs in the will, they were not entitled to personal notice under Rule 77, Section 4. The finality of the probate order and the subsequent distribution precludes the relitigation of the matters already settled. Therefore, the action for partition and annulment is barred.