G.R. No. L-54919 May 30, 1984
POLLY CAYETANO, petitioner, vs. HON. TOMAS T. LEONIDAS, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of Branch XXXVIII, Court of First Instance of Manila and NENITA CAMPOS PAGUIA, respondents.

FACTS

Adoracion C. Campos, a U.S. citizen and permanent resident of Pennsylvania, died in Manila in 1977. Her father, Hermogenes Campos (predecessor-in-interest of petitioner Polly Cayetano), initially adjudicated the entire estate to himself via an Affidavit of Adjudication. Later, private respondent Nenita Campos Paguia, the decedent’s sister, filed a petition for reprobate of Adoracion’s will, which had been previously probated in Pennsylvania. Hermogenes initially opposed, alleging forgery and invalid intrinsic provisions, but subsequently filed a “Motion to Dismiss Opposition” confirming the will’s veracity. Based on this withdrawal and ex-parte evidence, the respondent judge admitted the will to probate and appointed Paguia as administratrix.
Hermogenes later filed a petition for relief, claiming his withdrawal was procured by fraud, as the motion was allegedly inserted among unrelated documents he signed. He also filed a motion to vacate the probate order, challenging the court’s jurisdiction by asserting the decedent was a usual resident of Cavite, not Manila. The court dismissed the petition for relief after Hermogenes’ counsel, at the scheduled hearing, argued the motion to vacate instead of presenting evidence for the fraud claim. A motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

The primary issues were whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for relief and whether it lacked jurisdiction over the reprobate proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction. On the petition for relief, the Court held that the respondent judge correctly dismissed it for failure to present supporting evidence. The records showed the hearing was explicitly for the petition for relief, not the motion to vacate. The petitioner’s counsel chose to argue the latter, thereby defaulting on his burden of proof. The Court found no denial of due process, as the petitioner was given ample opportunity to be heard but failed to utilize it properly. Regarding jurisdiction, the Court applied Rule 73, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, which provides that if a decedent is an inhabitant of a foreign country, estate settlement shall be in the Court of First Instance of any province where he had estate. It was sufficiently alleged and proven that Adoracion was a U.S. citizen and permanent resident at her death, and she had an estate in Manila. Thus, the Court of First Instance of Manila properly assumed jurisdiction. The petitioner was also estopped from challenging jurisdiction after having initially participated in the proceedings and sought affirmative relief. The Court affirmed the probate order, emphasizing that reprobate primarily concerns the extrinsic validity of the will—its due execution and probate abroad—which was satisfactorily established.