G.R. No. L-12359; July 15, 1959
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE SUMMARY SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE LEFT BY THE DECEASED CARIDA PEREZ. BERNARDINO PEREZ, petitioner-appellee, vs. CONRADA PEREZ, ET AL., oppositors-appellants.

FACTS

This case involves an appeal from the Iloilo Court of First Instance concerning the summary settlement of the testate estate of Carida Perez. The estate’s value was reported as P6,000.00 by the petitioner and P10,000.00 by the oppositors. The oppositors raised factual issues, including the soundness of mind of the testatrix and her freedom from constraint when signing the will. The oppositors also argued that the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction to receive evidence for the allowance of the alleged will because two heirs, Melanio Perez, Jr. and Milagros Perez, were not notified in advance. The petitioner-appellee countered that these individuals were not forced heirs (being a grandnephew and niece) and were not mentioned as legatees or devisees in the will, and that notice had been addressed to Milagros Perez’s last known residence in the country. It was admitted that the petition for the allowance of the will had been published in newspapers.

ISSUE

Whether the appeal, which involves factual questions and an alleged procedural error regarding notice to certain heirs, was properly brought directly to the Supreme Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal should not have been brought directly to it. The case involves the summary settlement of an estate valued at less than P50,000.00 and raises several questions of fact, placing it under the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. The Court addressed the oppositors’ jurisdictional argument regarding lack of notice to specific heirs. It held that the lower court’s jurisdiction over all persons interested in the estate was acquired through the publication of the petition in the newspapers, as ruled in previous cases. Service of individual notice to heirs, legatees, or devisees is a matter of procedural convenience, not a jurisdictional requisite. Even if some names were omitted from the petition, the decree allowing the will does not automatically become void for want of jurisdiction. The alleged defect in notice constituted, at most, a procedural error. Furthermore, the jurisdictional question that is directly appealable to the Supreme Court refers to jurisdiction over the subject matter, not merely over the persons. Consequently, the Supreme Court referred the record to the Court of Appeals for proper disposition.