Basa vs. Mercado

The phrase "three weeks successively" in Section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires three consecutive weekly publications of the notice of hearing but does not require that the first publication be made twenty-one days before the date set for the hearing. A newspaper qualifies as one "of general circulation" if it is published for the dissemination of local news and general information, has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and is published at regular intervals, regardless of whether other newspapers have larger circulations.

Ines Basa, deceased, was the subject of probate proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. Atilano G. Mercado was the administrator of her estate and was declared the sole heir under her will. Joaquina Basa and others, as petitioners-appellants, were parties who sought to reopen the closed administration proceedings, alleging jurisdictional defects in the publication of notice. Section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure, derived from the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of Vermont, governed the publication requirements for the hearing on the allowance of a will.

On May 29, 1931, Judge Hermogenes Reyes of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga ordered the publication of the notice of hearing on the will of Ines Basa, deceased, directing that it be published "three weeks successively" previous to the time appointed for the hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation in the Province of Pampanga. The first publication appeared on June 6, 1931, the second on June 13, 1931, and the third on June 20, 1931. The hearing on the will took place on June 27, 1931, twenty-one days after the date of the first publication. By virtue of an order dated June 27, 1931, the will was allowed and probated.

On January 30, 1932, the same judge approved the account of the administrator of the estate, Atilano G. Mercado, declared him the only heir of the deceased under the will, and closed the administration proceedings. On April 11, 1934, Joaquina Basa and other petitioners filed a motion praying that the proceedings be reopened. They alleged that the court lacked jurisdiction because the notice of hearing had not been published for three full weeks before the hearing date, arguing that the first publication should have been made at least twenty-one days before June 27, 1931. The petitioners likewise challenged the qualification of the weekly newspaper Ing Katipunan, in which the notice had been published, as a newspaper of general circulation in the Province of Pampanga.

The trial court denied the motion to reopen, prompting the appeal. The record established that Ing Katipunan was published for the dissemination of local news and general information, maintained a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and was published at regular intervals. The trial court had ordered publication in Ing Katipunan precisely because it was a newspaper of general circulation in the Province of Pampanga. No evidence was offered to show that the newspaper was devoted to the interests of a particular class, profession, trade, calling, race, or religious denomination. Another paper published in Pampanga had approximately seventy-two more subscribers, and certain Manila dailies also had larger circulations in the province.

• Publication Requirement: Petitioners contended that the provisions of Section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been complied with because, although the trial judge ordered publication for "three weeks successively" previous to the hearing, the first publication on June 6, 1931, was only twenty-one days before the hearing on June 27, 1931, rather than three full weeks prior.
• Newspaper of General Circulation: Petitioners argued that the trial court erred in ruling that the weekly newspaper Ing Katipunan, in which the notice of hearing was published, was a newspaper of general circulation in the Province of Pampanga.

• Statutory Construction of "Three Weeks Successively": Whether the phrase "three weeks successively" in Section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that the first publication of the notice of hearing be made twenty-one days before the date set for the hearing on the will.
• Qualification of Newspaper of General Circulation: Whether the weekly newspaper Ing Katipunan qualified as a newspaper of general circulation in the Province of Pampanga.

• Statutory Construction of "Three Weeks Successively": No. The phrase "three weeks successively" does not require that the first publication be made twenty-one days before the hearing date; three consecutive weekly publications suffice to satisfy the statutory requirement.
• Qualification of Newspaper of General Circulation: Yes. Ing Katipunan qualified as a newspaper of general circulation in the Province of Pampanga, having been published for the dissemination of local news and general information with a bona fide subscription list and regular intervals of publication.

• Statutory Construction of "Three Weeks Successively": Section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure was taken from the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of Vermont. The Supreme Court of Vermont, in In re Warner's Estate (1925; 127 Atl. Rep., 362, 364; 98 Vt., 254, 261), construed the same phrase in a factually analogous setting: the notice was published on December 4, 11, and 18, 1919, and the hearing was set for December 19, 1919 — only fifteen days after the first publication. The Vermont court held that this constituted sufficient "public notice" under the statute, citing Lenehan vs. Spaulding (57 Vt., 115) and Burbeck vs. Little (50 Vt., 713) for the proposition that such a proceeding, being in the nature of a proceeding in rem, binds everybody by its legal effect. Applying this precedent, the Court held that the language of Section 630 does not mean the notice should be published for three full weeks before the hearing date; the first publication need not be made twenty-one days before the day appointed.

• Qualification of Newspaper of General Circulation: The record demonstrated that Ing Katipunan was published for the dissemination of local news and general information, maintained a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and was published at regular intervals. The trial court had expressly designated it as a newspaper of general circulation in the Province of Pampanga. No evidence was introduced to show that the newspaper was devoted to the interests of or published for the entertainment of a particular class, profession, trade, calling, race, or religious denomination. The fact that another paper in Pampanga had approximately seventy-two more subscribers and that Manila dailies had larger circulations in the province was deemed unimportant, as the law does not require publication in the newspaper with the largest number of subscribers to constitute a newspaper of general circulation.

• Statutory Construction — Derivative Legislation and Foreign Precedent — Where a statutory provision is derived from the law of another jurisdiction, the construction given to that provision by the courts of the originating jurisdiction is persuasive authority for its interpretation. Section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure was taken from the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of Vermont, and the Supreme Court adopted the Vermont Supreme Court's construction of "three weeks successively" as requiring three consecutive weekly publications, not three full weeks (twenty-one days) before the hearing date.

• Newspaper of General Circulation — Criteria — A newspaper of general circulation is one published for the dissemination of local news and general information, with a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and published at regular intervals. It is not disqualified by the existence of other newspapers with larger circulations, nor does the law require publication in the newspaper with the most subscribers. A newspaper devoted to the interests of a particular class, profession, trade, calling, race, or religious denomination does not qualify.

• "In view of the foregoing, it is held that the language used in section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not mean that the notice, referred to therein, should be published for three full weeks before the date set for the hearing on the will. In other words the first publication of the notice need not be made twenty-one days before the day appointed for the hearing." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the publication-timing issue, adopting the Vermont interpretation of "three weeks successively" as three consecutive weekly publications rather than a twenty-one-day lead time.

• "The law does not require that publication of the notice, referred to in the Code of Civil Procedure, should be made in the newspaper with the largest numbers is necessary to constitute a newspaper of general circulation." — This passage articulates the Court's holding on what qualifies as a newspaper of general circulation, clarifying that comparative circulation volume is not the test.

• In re Warner's Estate (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1925; 127 Atl. Rep., 362, 364; 98 Vt., 254, 261) — Controlling persuasive precedent. The Supreme Court adopted the Vermont court's construction of the phrase "three weeks successively," which appeared in the Vermont Code of Civil Procedure from which the Philippine provision was derived. The Vermont case upheld publication where the last of three weekly publications occurred the day before the hearing, only fifteen days after the first publication.
• Lenehan vs. Spaulding (57 Vt., 115) — Cited within the Vermont decision for the proposition that three consecutive weekly publications constituted sufficient "public notice" under the statute.
• Burbeck vs. Little (50 Vt., 713) — Cited within the Vermont decision for the proposition that a probate proceeding conducted with proper publication, being in the nature of a proceeding in rem, binds everybody by its legal effect.

• Section 630, Code of Civil Procedure — Governs the notice of hearing for the allowance of a will. It requires the court to appoint a time and place for the hearing and to cause public notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation "three weeks successively" previous to the time appointed. The Court construed this phrase to mean three consecutive weekly publications, not three full weeks before the hearing date.

Malcolm, Villa-Real, Imperial, and Butte, JJ., concurred.