G.R. No. L-29300 June 21, 1978
PEDRO D. H. GALLANOSA, et al., petitioners, vs. HON. UBALDO Y. ARCANGEL, Judge of Branch I of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon and FLORENTINO G. HITOSIS, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from the estate of Florentino Hitosis, who died in 1939 leaving a will. The will, executed in 1938, bequeathed his estate to petitioners Pedro Gallanosa (his foster child) and Adolfo Fortajada. The testator’s legal heirs opposed probate, but the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon admitted the will to probate in 1939. A project of partition was subsequently submitted and approved in 1943. The legal heirs did not appeal these final orders. In 1952, the legal heirs filed an action for recovery of the estate properties, alleging continuous possession. This complaint was dismissed on the ground of res judicata, as the probate proceeding had conclusively settled the distribution.
In 1968, the same legal heirs filed a new complaint (Civil Case No. 2233) seeking to annul the probate proceedings and recover the properties. The respondent judge initially dismissed this complaint on the ground of prescription. However, upon reconsideration, the judge reversed himself, relying on the plaintiffs’ theory that an action to declare a will void does not prescribe under Article 1410 of the Civil Code, which states that an action for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in reconsidering the order of dismissal and holding that the action to annul the probate proceedings and recover the properties had not prescribed.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the certiorari petition and annulled the respondent judge’s orders. The Court held that the principle of res judicata squarely applied. The 1939 probate decree and the 1943 order approving the partition were final and binding, as the legal heirs did not appeal them. These final judgments constitute a bar to any subsequent action attacking the distribution of the estate. The Court emphasized the public policy interest in the finality of judgments.
Crucially, the trial court’s reliance on Article 1410 of the Civil Code was a glaring error. The provision applies to contracts, not to wills. A last will and testament is not a contract but a unilateral act. The prescriptive period for an action to annul a probate decree is four years from discovery of fraud, or it may be barred earlier by laches. The legal heirs’ inaction for decades—filing the new action nearly 25 years after the partition was approved—rendered their claim stale. The respondent judge therefore committed grave abuse of discretion in reviving a long-settled case based on an inapplicable legal provision. The Court reinstated the original order dismissing the complaint.