GR 32328; (September, 1977) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-32328 September 30, 1977
TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE ADRIANO MALOTO: ALDINA MALOTO CASIANO, CONSTANCIO MALOTO, PURIFICACION MIRAFLOR, ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF MOLO, and ASILO DE MOLO, petitioners-appellants vs. FELINO MALOTO and FELINO MALOTO, oppositors-appellees.
FACTS
Adriana Maloto died in 1963. Believing she died intestate, her heirs commenced intestate proceedings and executed an extrajudicial partition of her estate, which the court approved in 1964. In 1967, a document purporting to be her last will and testament, dated 1940, was discovered. This will named the same heirs but allegedly provided them with different, more valuable shares and also included dispositions in favor of other legatees, including the Asilo de Molo, the Roman Catholic Church of Molo, and Purificacion Miraflor.
Some heirs then filed a motion in the ongoing intestate proceeding to have this will probated. The court denied this motion as having been filed out of time, and this denial became final after the Supreme Court dismissed a subsequent petition, clarifying that the proper remedy was to initiate a separate proceeding for the probate of the will. The petitioners thus commenced a new, separate special proceeding specifically for the probate of the alleged will.
ISSUE
Whether the separate petition for the probate of the alleged will is barred by the prior order in the intestate proceeding which denied the motion to probate the same will.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the separate probate petition is not barred. The legal logic is grounded in jurisdiction and the nature of probate proceedings. The Court of First Instance, acting as a probate court in the initial intestate proceeding (Special Proceeding No. 1736), correctly denied the motion to probate the will filed therein because it was an improper remedy; a motion within a closed intestate case is not the correct vehicle for probating a newly discovered will. Consequently, its order of denial did not constitute a final adjudication on the merits of the will’s validity or its alleged revocation.
Crucially, the Supreme Court emphasized that the probate court in the intestate proceeding lacked jurisdiction to make a definitive finding that the will had been revoked. Such a determination on the intrinsic validity or revocation of a will can only be made within a proper probate proceeding specifically instituted for that purpose. The Court’s prior resolution had explicitly directed the petitioners to file a separate probate proceeding, which they did. Therefore, the principle of res judicata does not apply, as there was no prior final judgment on the merits rendered by a court with proper jurisdiction over the subject matter of the probate of the will. The order dismissing the probate petition was set aside, and the lower court was directed to hear the petition on its merits.