G.R. No. 77047 May 28, 1988
JOAQUINA R-INFANTE DE ARANZ, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HON. NICODES GALING, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH NO. 166, PASIG, METRO MANILA AND JOAQUIN R-INFANTE, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Joaquin R-Infante filed a petition for the probate of the last will and testament of Montserrat R-Infante y G-Pola with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig. The petition explicitly listed the names and addresses of the petitioners as the legatees and devisees of the testator. The court set the case for hearing and caused the notice to be published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks. On the scheduled hearing, no opposition was presented. The court then issued an order allowing the presentation of evidence ex-parte and appointed the private respondent as executor.
Subsequently, the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that they, as named legatees and devisees with known addresses, were not personally notified of the probate proceedings as required by Section 4, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court. They prayed for an opportunity to file their opposition. The probate court denied their motion. The petitioners elevated the matter via a petition for certiorari and prohibition to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition, holding that personal notice to heirs and legatees is not a jurisdictional requirement but merely procedural for due process convenience.

ISSUE

Whether the probate court committed grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the allowance of the will without causing personal notice or notice by mail to the known legatees and devisees as mandated by Section 4, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the decision of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case to the trial court for proper proceedings. The Court emphasized that Section 4, Rule 76 is mandatory. It explicitly requires the court to cause copies of the notice of hearing to be sent to the designated or known heirs, legatees, and devisees residing in the Philippines at their places of residence, if such residences are known. This can be done either by mail at least twenty days before the hearing or by personal service at least ten days prior.
In this case, the residences of all petitioners were indisputably known, as they were meticulously listed in the very petition for probate. The court’s failure to direct notice to them, relying solely on newspaper publication, constituted a fatal omission. The Court distinguished the inapplicability of Joson vs. Nable, cited by the Court of Appeals, as that case involved heirs whose true residences were not known to the petitioner. Here, the addresses were specified and known. The requirement of individual notice is not merely procedural but is a fundamental step to vest the court with proper jurisdiction and to satisfy due process in probate proceedings, which are in rem. Consequently, the orders issued without such mandatory notice were void for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.