GR L 9633; (January, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9633 January 29, 1957
EMILIO SORIANO, petitioner-appellee, vs. ANTONIO ASI, respondent-appellant.
FACTS
Antonio Asi filed a petition for the probate of the alleged will of Crisanta Soriano in Special Proceedings No. 126. In his petition, Asi intentionally omitted the name of Emilio Soriano, a nephew and an intestate heir of the deceased, despite knowing of his existence. Consequently, Emilio Soriano was not given notice of the pendency of the petition or the hearing date, in violation of Sections 2 and 4 of Rule 77. The probate court admitted the will to probate and appointed Asi as administrator. Emilio Soriano later filed a sworn petition to vacate the order of probate, alleging he was deprived of his day in court due to the fraudulent omission of his name and because the notice of hearing was published in Spanish, a language he was unfamiliar with. He claimed he only learned of the proceedings on April 4, 1952. The Court of First Instance of Batangas, presided by Judge Edilberto Soriano, granted the petition and vacated the probate order, ruling it was obtained through extrinsic fraud. Antonio Asi appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance correctly vacated the order admitting the will to probate on the ground of extrinsic fraud.
RULING
Yes, the decision of the Court of First Instance is affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the fraud practiced upon Emilio Soriano was extrinsic. The fraud was not related to the issue decided in the probate proceedings (the due execution of the will) but was collateral, as it prevented Emilio Soriano from having his day in court by intentionally omitting him as an heir and depriving him of notice. The Court also ruled that the petition for relief was filed within the prescribed period. The six-month period under Rule 38, Section 3 should be counted from the entry of the judgment or order, not its rendition. Since the probate order was rendered on October 10, 1951, it could be entered at the earliest on November 9, 1951 (after the 30-day appeal period). Therefore, the petition for relief filed on April 22, 1952, was within six months. The Court further clarified that Emilio Soriano was not questioning the probate court’s jurisdiction, which was properly acquired through publication; his petition assumed jurisdiction and sought relief from a judgment obtained by fraud.