G.R. No. L-12397; April 2, 1918
FLORENCIA ANURAN, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANA AQUINO and RUFINA ORTIZ, administratrices of the intestate estate of Quiteria Ortiz, defendants. ANA AQUINO, appellant.

FACTS:
Florencia Anuran is the widow of Ambrosio Aquino. Upon Ambrosio’s death, Norberto Capiña was appointed administrator of his intestate estate at the instance of Ana Aquino. Ana Aquino, colluding with the administrator, fraudulently represented to the court that Ambrosio died without heirs other than herself, whom she presented as the legitimate daughter of Ambrosio’s deceased sister. Based on these false representations and without notice to the widow, the court issued an order dated March 12, 1912, authorizing the delivery of the entire estate to Ana Aquino. Florencia Anuran discovered the fraud on February 14, 1914, and promptly moved in the administration proceedings to set aside the order and be declared the sole heir. The probate court denied her motion, ruling it had no jurisdiction to grant the relief under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the motion was filed more than six months after the order. Florencia Anuran then instituted a separate civil action to declare the order null and void due to fraud, recover possession of the properties, and claim damages.

ISSUE:
Whether a separate civil action for the annulment of a probate court order, obtained through extrinsic fraud and collusion, is permissible when a motion to set aside the same order in the original proceedings was correctly denied for being filed beyond the reglementary period.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Florencia Anuran. The Court held:
1. A final judgment or order procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud may be attacked in a separate civil action for relief on the ground of fraud. Such an action is distinct from a motion for relief in the original proceedings and is an equitable remedy recognized under Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The probate court correctly denied Florencia Anuran’s motion to set aside the order under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it was filed beyond the six-month period. This denial, however, did not bar the separate action because the court, in dismissing the motion, did not adjudicate the merits of the fraud claim but merely ruled on its lack of jurisdiction to entertain the belated motion. Thus, the principle of res judicata does not apply.
3. The evidence sufficiently proved that Ana Aquino was a natural child, not a legitimate one, of Ambrosio Aquino’s sister. Consequently, under Articles 943 and 952 of the Civil Code, she had no right to succeed ab intestato to Ambrosio’s estate. In the absence of other legitimate relatives, the surviving spouse, Florencia Anuran, is the sole heir entitled to the entire estate.
4. The action was filed within the four-year prescriptive period for actions based on fraud, which commences from the discovery of the fraud, not from the date of the fraudulent order.
The appealed decision was affirmed.