G.R. No. L-42615 August 10, 1976
SALUD DIVINAGRACIA, EMILIA DIVINAGRACIA, DOLORES DIVINAGRACIA, ROSARIO DIVINAGRACIA and JUANITA DIVINAGRACIA, petitioners, vs. JUDGE VALERIO V. ROVIRA in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch IV, Court of First Instance, Iloilo City, and CAMILO DIVINAGRACIA, respondents.

FACTS

Feliciano Divinagracia died in 1964. An intestate proceeding for his estate was duly instituted, with notice published. His widow, Salud, and their four daughters were the recognized heirs. Emilia Divinagracia was appointed administratrix. After seven years of administration, payment of taxes, and submission of a final accounting and project of partition—which included a liquidation of the conjugal partnership and a declaration of heirs—the probate court approved the partition and ordered the proceeding closed and terminated in April 1971. The partition was registered.
Subsequently, on June 8, 1971, after the closure order had become final, Camilo Divinagracia filed a motion to reopen the proceeding. He alleged he was an illegitimate (spurious) child of the decedent, born in 1930, and claimed he only learned of the proceeding upon his transfer to Iloilo shortly before filing his motion. He prayed for determination of his share. The administratrix opposed, arguing the proceeding could no longer be reopened and that the issue of acknowledgment fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court (JDRC). The motion remained unresolved for years until respondent Judge Rovira, to whom the case was re-raffled, issued an order in October 1975 reopening the intestate. The lower court assumed there had been no proper liquidation or declaration of heirs and directed further proceedings, including allowing Camilo to present evidence on his filiation.

ISSUE

Whether the probate court gravely abused its discretion in reopening the already closed intestate proceeding to allow a spurious child to present evidence on his filiation and claim a share in the estate.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the order reopening the proceeding. The closure order of April 1971 was final and executory. Camilo’s motion to reopen was filed well beyond the thirty-day reglementary period from notice of the closure order. An intestate proceeding is an action in rem; Camilo is deemed to have had constructive notice through the published orders, and final orders cannot be disturbed after the reglementary period. Furthermore, the lower court’s assumption that no liquidation or declaration of heirs occurred was erroneous. The approved project of partition and final accounting substantially complied with legal requirements for conjugal liquidation and heirship declaration.
Most critically, the probate court erred in entertaining Camilo’s motion as it inherently required a determination of his status as a spurious child. Under Republic Act No. 4834 , the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Iloilo possessed exclusive original jurisdiction over all cases involving paternity and acknowledgment. The proper venue for Camilo to establish his filiation, whether by voluntary recognition or through an action for compulsory recognition under the Civil Code, was the JDRC, not the already concluded intestate proceeding. Therefore, the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction and in excess of authority in reopening the estate settlement.