G.R. No. 156021 , September 23, 2005
CYNTHIA C. ALABAN, FRANCIS COLLADO, JOSE P. COLLADO, JUDITH PROVIDO, CLARITA PROVIDO, ALFREDO PROVIDO, MANUEL PROVIDO, JR., LORNA DINA E. PROVIDO, SEVERO ARENGA, JR., SERGIO ARENGA, EDUARDO ARENGA, CAROL ARENGA, RUTH BABASA, NORMA HIJASTRO, DOLORES M. FLORES, ANTONIO MARIN, JR., JOSE MARIN, SR., and MATHILDE MARIN, Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FRANCISCO H. PROVIDO, Respondent.

FACTS

On November 8, 2000, respondent Francisco Provido filed a petition for the probate of the Last Will and Testament of the late Soledad Provido Elevencionado in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo. On May 30, 2001, the RTC rendered a Decision allowing the probate and directing the issuance of letters testamentary to respondent. More than four months later, on October 4, 2001, petitioners filed a motion to reopen the probate proceedings and an opposition to the allowance of the will, claiming to be the intestate heirs of the decedent. They challenged the RTC’s jurisdiction due to alleged non-payment of correct docket fees, defective publication, and lack of notice to other heirs. They also contested the will on grounds of forgery, improper execution, lack of testamentary capacity, force and duress, lack of intention, and inclusion of properties not belonging to the decedent. The RTC denied their motion on January 11, 2002, ruling that petitioners were deemed notified by publication, that the docket fee deficiency was not a ground for dismissal, and that its Decision had already become final and executory.
Petitioners then filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging they learned of the probate proceedings only in July 2001 due to respondent’s extrinsic fraud—specifically, that respondent had feigned interest in a compromise agreement regarding the estate’s division while secretly pursuing probate. They argued the RTC’s Decision should be annulled for extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. The CA dismissed the petition in its Resolution dated February 28, 2002, finding no showing that petitioners failed to avail of ordinary remedies (new trial, appeal, petition for relief) through no fault of their own, and that their claim of extrinsic fraud was baseless. The CA denied their motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court, asserting the CA committed grave abuse of discretion. They maintained they were not parties to the probate case and thus could not have availed of the ordinary remedies, and that respondent’s actions constituted extrinsic fraud. Respondent countered that petitioners could have availed of Rules 37 and 38 remedies, that no extrinsic fraud existed, and that lack of notice to heirs is not a jurisdictional defect. Respondent also charged petitioners with forum-shopping, noting a related petition for letters of administration filed by petitioner Dolores M. Flores in General Santos City, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and was on appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s dismissal. The Court held that petitioners were in fact parties to the probate proceedings by operation of law. Under the Rules of Court, any executor, devisee, or legatee named in a will, or any person interested in the estate, may, by motion, oppose the allowance of the will. Petitioners, by filing their opposition and motion to reopen, became parties to the case. Consequently, the ordinary remedies of new trial, reconsideration, or petition for relief from judgment under Rules 37 and 38 were available to them. Their failure to timely avail of these remedies barred their resort to the special remedy of annulment of judgment under Rule 47, which requires that the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
Furthermore, the Court found no extrinsic fraud. Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party committed outside of the trial, which prevented the aggrieved party from having a trial or presenting their case. The alleged acts—respondent’s offer of a false compromise and failure to notify petitioners—did not constitute extrinsic fraud as they did not prevent petitioners from participating in the proceedings. Lack of personal notice to heirs is not a jurisdictional defect in probate proceedings; publication is sufficient. The Court also noted that the pendency of the related administration case in another court supported the charge of forum-shopping. Thus, the CA correctly dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment.