Alaban vs. Court of Appeals

In rem probate proceedings, publication of the notice of hearing constitutes notice to the whole world and vests the court with jurisdiction, thereby making all interested persons parties to the case who may avail of ordinary remedies; consequently, annulment of judgment is unavailable where petitioners failed to utilize such remedies without sufficient justification.

Soledad Provido Elevencionado died on October 26, 2000 in Janiuay, Iloilo. Respondent Francisco H. Provido, claiming to be the sole heir and executor of her will, filed a petition for the probate of her Last Will and Testament. The RTC allowed the will and directed the issuance of letters testamentary to respondent. More than four months after the probate judgment, petitioners—nephews and nieces of the decedent—filed a motion to reopen the proceedings and opposed the allowance of the will, asserting their status as intestate heirs and alleging jurisdictional defects and fraud. The RTC denied the motion, noting the judgment had already become final and executory. Petitioners then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for annulment of judgment, which was dismissed.

• The Probate Proceedings: On November 8, 2000, respondent filed a petition for probate of the Last Will and Testament of Soledad Provido Elevencionado, who died on October 26, 2000. Respondent alleged he was the sole heir and executor. On May 30, 2001, the RTC allowed the probate of the will and directed the issuance of letters testamentary to respondent.
• The Motion to Reopen: On October 4, 2001, more than four months after the RTC decision, petitioners filed a motion to reopen the probate proceedings and opposed the allowance of the will. Petitioners claimed to be intestate heirs and alleged the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to non-payment of correct docket fees, defective publication, and lack of notice to other heirs. They also asserted that the decedent's signature was forged, the will was not executed according to law, the decedent lacked testamentary capacity, the will was executed under duress, and the decedent included properties that no longer belonged to her.
• The RTC Denial: On January 11, 2002, the RTC denied petitioners' motion. The RTC held that publication sufficed for notice, deficiency in docket fees was not a ground for outright dismissal, and the decision was already final and executory.
• The Annulment Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the CA, claiming extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction. They alleged that respondent feigned interest in a compromise agreement to divide the estate, preventing them from suspecting his intention to secure the probate of the will alone. They claimed they only learned of the probate proceedings in July 2001.
• The Intestate Estate Petition: One of the petitioners, Dolores M. Flores, previously filed a petition for letters of administration in the RTC of General Santos City, claiming the decedent died intestate. The RTC dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, stating the proper venue was Iloilo where the decedent died. Flores appealed this dismissal to the CA, where it was pending as CA-G.R. No. 74924.

• Extrinsic Fraud: Petitioners argued that respondent's deliberate omission of their names as heirs in the probate petition and his failure to notify them of the proceedings constituted extrinsic fraud that denied them their day in court. They also asserted that respondent's offer of a false compromise prevented them from appearing and opposing the petition.
• Lack of Jurisdiction: Petitioners maintained that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the probate petition due to non-payment of the correct docket fees, defective publication, and lack of notice to the other heirs.
• Unavailability of Ordinary Remedies: Petitioners averred that because they were not made parties to the probate case, they could not have availed of the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, or petition for relief from judgment, and thus annulment of judgment was their only recourse.

• Availability of Ordinary Remedies: Respondent countered that petitioners were in a position to avail of remedies under Rules 37 and 38, as they in fact did by filing a motion to reopen. He argued they could have filed a petition for relief from judgment since they learned of the judgment only three and a half months after its promulgation.
• No Extrinsic Fraud: Respondent maintained that no extrinsic fraud existed to warrant annulment. Petitioners were not made parties to the probate proceedings because the decedent did not institute them as her heirs. Lack of personal notice is not a fatal defect, as it is a matter of procedural convenience and not a jurisdictional requisite.
• Forum-Shopping: Respondent charged petitioners with forum-shopping, noting the pendency of the appeal in CA-G.R. No. 74924 arising from the intestate estate petition filed by petitioner Flores, which involved the same parties and issues regarding the existence and validity of the will.

• Annulment of Judgment: Whether the RTC decision allowing the probate of the will may be annulled on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
• Availability of Ordinary Remedies: Whether petitioners, despite not being named in the probate petition, may avail of ordinary remedies such as a motion for new trial or a petition for relief from judgment.
• Extrinsic Fraud: Whether respondent's failure to personally notify petitioners and his alleged offer of a false compromise constitute extrinsic fraud.
• Forum-Shopping: Whether petitioners are guilty of forum-shopping.

• Annulment of Judgment: The petition for annulment of judgment was correctly dismissed. Annulment is available only when ordinary remedies are no longer accessible through no fault of the petitioner, and is based solely on extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction. Because petitioners were deemed parties to the probate proceedings and failed to justify their non-use of ordinary remedies, annulment was unavailing.
• Availability of Ordinary Remedies: Petitioners could have availed of ordinary remedies. Probate proceedings are in rem; publication of the notice of hearing vests the court with jurisdiction and brings in the whole world as a party. Thus, even though petitioners were not named in the petition, they became parties to the proceedings as a consequence of publication. Having become aware of the decision before the six-month reglementary period lapsed, they could have filed a petition for relief from judgment but failed to do so.
• Extrinsic Fraud: Extrinsic fraud was not established. Petitioners, as nephews and nieces of the decedent, are neither compulsory nor testate heirs entitled to personal notice under the Rules. Respondent had no legal obligation to personally notify them. Even assuming they were entitled to notice, the publication cured the defect, as personal notice is a matter of procedural convenience, not a jurisdictional requisite. Because they were not prevented from participating in the proceedings, no extrinsic fraud existed.
• Forum-Shopping: Petitioners committed forum-shopping. The parties in the present case and in the appealed intestate case (CA-G.R. No. 74924) are the same, and both cases deal with the existence and validity of the will, anchored on the theory of intestacy. Petitioners also failed to inform the Court and the CA of the pendency of the other case in their certification against forum-shopping.

• In Rem Nature of Probate Proceedings — A proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem. With the corresponding publication of the petition, the court's jurisdiction extends to all persons interested in the will or the settlement of the estate. Publication of notice brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.
• Annulment of Judgment — An action for annulment of judgment is an independent remedy resorted to when ordinary remedies (new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment) are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. It is based only on two grounds: (1) extrinsic fraud, and (2) lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process.
• Extrinsic Fraud — Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured. The overriding consideration is that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having his day in court.
• Personal Notice in Probate — Personal notice upon the heirs is a matter of procedural convenience and not a jurisdictional requisite. Publication of the notice of hearing suffices to vest the court with jurisdiction over all interested parties.

• "It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it."
• "Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is procured."
• "personal notice upon the heirs is a matter of procedural convenience and not a jurisdictional requisite."

• Abut v. Abut, 150-A Phil. 679 (1972) — Followed for the ruling that a probate proceeding is in rem and publication extends the court's jurisdiction to all interested persons.
• Barco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120587 (2004) — Followed for the principle that publication of notice brings in the whole world as a party and vests the court with jurisdiction.
• Bobis v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113796 (2000) — Followed for the definition of extrinsic fraud as a ground for annulment of judgment.
• Teodoro v. Court of Appeals, 437 Phil. 336 (2002) — Followed for the overriding consideration in extrinsic fraud: that the fraudulent scheme prevented a party from having his day in court.
• Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Alejo, G.R. No. 141970 (2001) — Distinguished. While generally a person who was never a party to the case cannot avail of a petition for relief from judgment, in the present case, petitioners became parties by operation of law through publication.

• Rule 37, Sec. 1, Rules of Court — Governed the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration, available only to aggrieved parties within the period for taking an appeal.
• Rule 38, Secs. 1, 2, 3, Rules of Court — Governed the petition for relief from judgment, available to a party against whom a judgment is entered through fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, filed within 60 days after learning of the judgment and within 6 months after entry thereof.
• Rule 47, Sec. 1, Rules of Court — Governed annulment of judgments or final orders, limited to grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, available only when ordinary remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.
• Rule 76, Secs. 1, 3, 4, Rules of Court — Governed the allowance of wills, requiring notice of the time and place for proving the will to be published for three consecutive weeks and furnished to designated or known heirs, legatees, and devisees.
• Art. 842, Civil Code — Cited to establish that petitioners, as nephews and nieces of the decedent, are neither compulsory nor testate heirs entitled to personal notice under the Rules.

Reynato S. Puno (Chairman), Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., Minita V. Chico-Nazario