Bollozos vs. Heirs of Luisa Abrio Vda. de Aguilar

In probate proceedings, the court acquires jurisdiction upon full payment of the docket fees assessed by the clerk of court based on the probable value of the estate as stated in the petition, and any deficiency in assessment is collectible prior to closure of the proceedings rather than at commencement. Additionally, republication of the notice of hearing is not required when the initial hearing date is postponed, provided the original publication already notified all interested parties of the existence of the probate proceedings.

Luisa Abrio Vda. de Agualar died leaving a will, and respondent Florentino Diputado was named executor therein. Petitioner Felicitas Aguilar Bollozos claims to be the daughter and sole surviving heir of the decedent. The dispute arose within the context of probate proceedings, where the Rules of Court require payment of docket fees based on the value of the estate and publication of notice of hearing to confer jurisdiction over the proceedings, which are in rem in nature.

On December 28, 2007, respondent Florentino Diputado, in his capacity as the named executor in the will, filed a Verified Petition for the probate of the will of Luisa Abrio Vda. de Aguilar before the Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental, Branch 17. The verified petition alleged the total approximate assessed value of the estate as ₱1,000,000.00. On January 7, 2008, the RTC issued an Order setting the petition for hearing on February 13, 2008, requiring all interested parties to appear and show cause why the petition should not be granted, and ordering publication of the Order once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Cagayan de Oro and the Province of Misamis Oriental.

On January 28, 2008, petitioner Felicitas Aguilar Bollozos, claiming to be the daughter and sole surviving heir of Vda. de Aguilar, filed an Opposition with Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, grounded on non-payment of the proper docket fees. Petitioner contended that while the verified petition alleged the estate's approximate assessed value as ₱1,000,000.00, tax declarations of the decedent's declared properties indicated a total market value of ₱6,595,616.00, rendering the docket fees paid insufficient and failing to vest jurisdiction upon the RTC. The RTC denied the Opposition in its Resolution dated October 23, 2008.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed two motions: first, a motion for reconsideration of the October 23, 2008 Resolution, and second, a Motion to Make Definite Appraisal of Estate Value filed on February 27, 2009. Both motions were denied by the RTC in its Orders dated March 10, 2009 and April 21, 2009, respectively. The RTC ratiocinated in the April 21, 2009 Order that the matter raised in the motion for appraisal had already been passed upon in its Resolution dated March 10, 2009. The petitioner also raised the issue of republication, arguing that there should be a republication of the notice for hearing after the initial date set was postponed and scheduled anew.

The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals assailing the Orders dated March 10, 2009 and April 21, 2009, alleging that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it assumed jurisdiction despite the respondent's deficient payment of docket fees and defective publication, and when it denied the motion to make a definite appraisal value of the estate. The CA, through its Resolution dated June 30, 2009, denied due course to the petition on account of the petitioner's failure to file a motion for reconsideration before resorting to a special civil action for certiorari. On September 23, 2010, the CA denied the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration, prompting the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

• Motion for Reconsideration Not Necessary: Petitioner argued that the assailed RTC Order dated March 10, 2009 was itself a resolution of her motion for reconsideration of the RTC Resolution dated October 23, 2008; therefore, filing another motion for reconsideration would be useless. She further argued that established exceptions to the rule requiring a motion for reconsideration obtain in the case—when there is an issue of jurisdiction, when the filing of such motion would be useless, when only legal issues are involved, and when so demanded by the interest of substantial justice.
• Deficient Docket Fees: Petitioner maintained that the RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction because the docket fees paid were deficient, the verified petition having alleged the estate value as ₱1,000,000.00 while tax declarations indicated a total market value of ₱6,595,616.00. She argued that the issue of whether the docket fees paid were deficient is best resolved at the earliest stages of the case because docket fees are the lifeblood of the judicial system.
• Republication of Notice: Petitioner argued that there should be a republication of the notice for hearing after the initial date set was postponed and scheduled anew, as the RTC failed to obtain jurisdiction in rem over the whole world by refusing republication of the notice of initial hearing.

• No Reversible Errors: Respondents argued that there are no reversible errors and that the petitioner's submissions are a mere rehash of the points she raised before the CA.
• Correct Docket Fees Paid: Respondents submitted that they paid the correct amount of docket fees based on the probable value of the properties included in the estate, as required by the Rules.
• No Need for Republication: Respondents contended that there is no longer any need for publication anew of the RTC order inasmuch as all interested parties have already been previously notified.

• Motion for Reconsideration: Whether the CA erred in dismissing the certiorari petition on the ground that no motion for reconsideration was filed before the CA.
• Docket Fees and Jurisdiction: Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the probate proceedings despite the alleged deficient payment of docket fees based on the declared estate value.
• Republication of Notice: Whether republication of the notice of hearing is required when the initial hearing date set in the published notice is postponed and rescheduled.

• Motion for Reconsideration: No, the non-filing was not fatal. The second and fourth exceptions to the motion-for-reconsideration requirement apply—where the questions raised have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, and where a motion for reconsideration would be useless.
• Docket Fees and Jurisdiction: Yes, the RTC acquired jurisdiction. Full payment of docket fees as assessed by the clerk of court based on the probable value stated in the petition is sufficient; any deficiency is collectible prior to closure of proceedings.
• Republication of Notice: No, republication is not required. The initial publication already notified all interested parties of the existence of the probate proceedings, satisfying due process requirements.

• Motion for Reconsideration: The settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari, to grant the court an opportunity to correct any actual or perceived error. However, this rule admits of recognized exceptions. The Court found the second exception applicable—where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court—and the fourth exception—where a motion for reconsideration would be useless. The petitioner's certiorari petition before the CA rested upon the same points raised in this petition: that the RTC failed to acquire jurisdiction due to deficient docket fees and that its Order resetting the case for hearing was not published. These issues had already been raised before and passed upon by the RTC in its Resolution dated October 23, 2008 (denying the Opposition) and Order dated March 10, 2009 (denying the motion for reconsideration). The RTC's Order dated April 21, 2009 further ratiocinated that the matter raised in the motion for appraisal had already been passed upon. Additionally, the issue of whether republication is required upon postponement of the initial hearing date is a pure question of law, which also justifies the lack of a motion for reconsideration.

• Docket Fees and Jurisdiction: It is elementary that the court acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon payment of the prescribed docket fees. In the matter of allowance of wills, Section 7, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC and Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004, governs the amount of docket fees, which are collected in accordance with the value of the property involved in the proceedings as stated in the application or petition. The clerk of court has the authority to assess the amount of docket fees based on either the fair market value of the real property as stated in the current tax declaration or BIR zonal valuation, whichever is higher, or the stated value of the property as alleged by the claimant. Citing Ramones vs. Sps. Guimoc, the Court held that where the plaintiff has paid the amount of filing fees assessed by the clerk of court, and the amount paid turns out to be deficient, the trial court still acquires jurisdiction over the case, subject to the payment of the deficiency assessment, provided that the party acted in good faith or had no intention to defraud the government. In this case, it was undisputed that the respondents paid in full the amount of docket fees assessed by the clerk of court based on the value stated in the verified petition. Fraudulent intent cannot be presumed from the insufficiency of the respondents' allegation of value, because under Section 2, Rule 76, a petition for allowance of a will requires only a declaration of the probable value and character of the property of the estate. Should the RTC eventually appraise the estate value to be greater than the declared amount, the difference in docket fees must be paid prior to closure of proceedings. The definitive assessment of value need not be done during commencement of the proceedings, so long as full and appropriate payment is made prior to cessation.

• Republication of Notice: Sections 3 and 4, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court mandate two notification requirements in probate proceedings, both mandatory and jurisdictional: (a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation, and (b) personal notice to the designated or known heirs, legatees, and devisees. In this case, compliance with these requirements was admitted. The question arose because the hearing date set in the published notice was postponed. The publication requirement is attributable to the in rem nature of probate proceedings, which are actions against the thing itself and binding upon the whole world. Due process dictates that all persons with interest be notified and given an opportunity to defend their interests through publication. However, due process does not demand the unreasonable. The Court regarded it sufficient that publication of the notice of hearing was done prior to the commencement of the proceedings, notifying all persons of the verified petition and giving them an opportunity to defend their interests on a scheduled date. Thereafter, it becomes incumbent upon all persons concerned to appear and actively protect their interests. That the hearing date indicated in the notice did not push through is beside the point, as all interested parties have already been notified of the existence of the probate proceedings by virtue of publication, and any subsequent development is easily verifiable. The purpose of procedure is to facilitate and not thwart justice.

• Motion for Reconsideration as Condition Sine Qua Non for Certiorari — A motion for reconsideration is generally required before filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, to afford the lower court an opportunity to correct its errors. However, the rule admits of exceptions: (a) where the order is a patent nullity; (b) where the questions raised have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court; (c) where there is urgent necessity for resolution; (d) where a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency; (f) where relief from an order of arrest is urgent in a criminal case; (g) where proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (h) where proceedings were ex parte; and (i) where the issue raised is purely of law or public interest is involved. The Court applied the second and fourth exceptions.
• Jurisdiction Upon Payment of Docket Fees as Assessed — Where the plaintiff has paid the amount of filing fees assessed by the clerk of court, and the amount paid turns out to be deficient, the trial court still acquires jurisdiction over the case, subject to payment of the deficiency assessment, provided the party acted in good faith or without intention to defraud the government. The deficiency constitutes a lien on the judgment pursuant to Section 2, Rule 141. In probate proceedings, the petition need only declare the probable value and character of the estate property; the definitive assessment of value for computing docket fees need not be done at commencement, so long as full payment is made prior to closure.
• Publication in In Rem Proceedings — The publication requirement in probate proceedings, which are in rem in nature, serves to notify all persons with interests in the subject matter and give them an opportunity to defend their interests. Once publication has been made notifying all interested parties of the existence of the proceedings and the scheduled hearing date, republication is not required merely because the hearing date was postponed. It then becomes incumbent upon all persons concerned to appear and actively protect their interests, as any subsequent development is easily verifiable.

• "where the plaintiff has paid the amount of filing fees assessed by the clerk of court, and the amount paid turns out to be deficient, the trial court still acquires jurisdiction over the case, subject to the payment by the plaintiff of the deficiency assessment" — This passage, quoting Ramones vs. Sps. Guimoc, articulates the controlling rule on jurisdiction and deficient docket fees, establishing that good-faith payment of assessed fees vests jurisdiction even if the assessment is later found insufficient.
• "Due process does not however demand the unreasonable." — This statement frames the Court's rationale for dispensing with the requirement of republication upon postponement of the hearing date, emphasizing that procedural requirements must yield to practical reasonableness once their substantive purpose has been served.
• "The purpose of procedure is to facilitate and not to thwart justice. It was created not to hinder and delay, but to promote the administration of justice." — This oft-cited principle underscores the Court's interpretive approach to procedural rules in probate proceedings, ensuring that technicalities do not obstruct the substantive administration of justice.

• Republic of the Philippines vs. Bayao, 710 Phil. 279 (2013) — Cited for the proposition that a dismissal by the CA of a Rule 65 petition for failure to file a motion for reconsideration may be assailed via Rule 45.
• Siok Ping Tang vs. Subic Bay Distribution, Inc., 653 Phil. 124 (2010) — Cited as the source of the enumerated exceptions to the motion-for-reconsideration requirement in certiorari proceedings.
• Ramones vs. Sps. Guimoc, 838 Phil. 542 (2018) — Controlling precedent on the rule that full payment of docket fees as assessed by the clerk of court vests jurisdiction even if the assessment is later found deficient, provided good faith and absence of fraudulent intent.
• Gonzales vs. Pe, 670 Phil. 597 (2011) — Cited for the elementary rule that the court acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon payment of the prescribed docket fees.
• Racca vs. Echague, G.R. No. 237133, January 20, 2021 — Cited for the rule that in probate proceedings, both publication and personal notice are mandatory and jurisdictional requirements.
• De Pedro vs. Romasan Development Corp., 748 Phil. 706 (2014) — Cited for the explanation of the in rem nature of proceedings and the due process requirement of notice through publication.

• Section 7, Rule 141, Rules of Court (as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC and Supreme Court Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004) — Governs the amount of docket fees in probate proceedings, collected in accordance with the value of the property involved as stated in the application or petition. Provides that if the value of the estate as definitely appraised by the court exceeds the declared value, the difference in fees shall be paid prior to closure of proceedings.
• Section 2, Rule 141, Rules of Court — Provides that where the court awards a claim or relief different from or more than that claimed in the pleading, the party concerned shall pay the additional fees, which shall constitute a lien on the judgment.
• Section 2, Rule 76, Rules of Court — Requires a petition for allowance of a will to state, among others, the probable value and character of the property of the estate. The Court relied on this provision to conclude that fraudulent intent cannot be presumed from an insufficient allegation of value, as the petition need only declare probable value.
• Sections 3 and 4, Rule 76, Rules of Court — Govern the notice requirements in probate proceedings: Section 3 requires the court to fix a time and place for proving the will and cause notice to be published three weeks successively in a newspaper of general circulation; Section 4 requires personal notice to designated or known heirs, legatees, and devisees by mail or personally. Both are mandatory and jurisdictional.

Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, Inting, and Dimaampao, JJ., concurred.