GR L 3378; (August, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3378; August 22, 1951
TESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED DAMASA CRISOSTOMO. NAZARIO TRILLANA, administrator-appellee, vs. CONSORCIA P. CRISOSTOMO, ET ALS., petitioners-appellants.
FACTS
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan denying the appellants’ petition for relief from the judgment allowing the will of October 19, 1948, executed by the deceased Damasa Crisostomo. The appellants, claiming to be legal heirs (nephews and nieces), sought relief on grounds of fraud, alleging that proponents of the October 19 will failed to cause personal notice to the heirs as required by Rule 77, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. They also contended that the lower court failed in its legal duty to set a date for proving an earlier will dated August 16, 1948, which was allegedly sent to the court but received after the filing of the October 19 will. The October 19 will expressly revoked the August 16 will.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court erred in denying the appellants’ petition for relief from the judgment admitting the will of October 19, 1948, to probate.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order, denying the petition for relief. The Court held:
1. The appellants failed to prove that the judgment was obtained through fraud. The question of compliance with notice requirements under Rule 77, Section 4 was not raised in the lower court, and the legal presumption is that the court complied with its duty. The appellee’s statement that notice was published and served was not denied by appellants.
2. Even assuming the court had a duty to set a date for proving the August 16 will, it was correct not to do so because that will was expressly and absolutely revoked by the subsequent October 19 will. A revoked will may only be probated if the revoking will is disallowed.
3. The appellants lack the necessary interest to appeal. Their interest is contingent upon multiple uncertain events: disallowance of the October 19 will, allowance of the August 16 will, and invalidation of legacies in the August 16 will. For a party to appeal, the interest must be material and direct, not indirect or contingent. Since both wills leave properties to other persons, the appellants have no direct interest in which will is probated.
The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellants.