Casiano vs. Maloto

A subsequently discovered will must be probated in a separate proceeding, and an order denying reopening of a closed intestate proceeding — including any incidental finding that the will was revoked — is not res judicata to that probate proceeding.

Adriana Maloto left as putative heirs her niece Aldina Maloto Casiano and her nephews Constancio Maloto, Panfilo Maloto, and Felino Maloto. The Asilo de Molo, the Roman Catholic Church of Molo, and Purificacion Miraflor were later asserted to be devisees and/or legatees under a document dated January 3, 1940 purporting to be Maloto's last will and testament. Understanding the distinction between allowance of a will in a dedicated probate proceeding and disposition of property in an intestate proceeding is necessary to resolve the effect of the earlier intestate orders.

Adriana Maloto died on October 20, 1963 in Iloilo City, her place of residence. Believing she had died intestate, her niece Aldina Maloto Casiano and her nephews Constancio Maloto, Panfilo Maloto, and Felino Maloto commenced intestate Special Proceeding No. 1736 in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on November 4, 1963. During that proceeding, the four executed an extrajudicial partition of her estate on February 1, 1964, adjudicating it unto themselves in equal one-fourth shares, which the court approved on March 21, 1964.

On April 1, 1967, a document dated January 3, 1940 purporting to be the last will and testament of Adriana Maloto was delivered to the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. Aldina Maloto Casiano and Constancio Maloto were named therein as heirs with shares allegedly bigger, different, and more valuable than those obtained in the extrajudicial partition, while the will also allegedly made dispositions to the Asilo de Molo, the Roman Catholic Church of Molo, and Purificacion Miraflor. On May 24, 1967, Casiano and Constancio Maloto filed in Special Proceeding No. 1736 a motion for reconsideration, annulment of the proceedings, and allowance of the will, joined by separate petitions for allowance filed by the Asilo de Molo, the Roman Catholic Church of Molo, and Purificacion Miraflor. Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto opposed the motion.

The intestate court denied reopening on November 16, 1968 on the ground that the motion was filed out of time, denied reconsideration, and dismissed the appeal as late and improper. After the Supreme Court directed resort to a separate probate proceeding, petitioners commenced Special Proceeding No. 2176 for probate of the alleged will. Panfilo Maloto and Felino Maloto opposed and moved to dismiss, asserting revocation, res judicata, extinction of the estate, and estoppel. The probate court dismissed the petition in its April 13, 1970 order, adopting the intestate court's finding that the will had been destroyed and revoked and holding the matter barred by the November 16, 1968 order.

• Revocation: Petitioner argued that the lower court erred in holding that the admittedly genuine last will and testament of Adriana Maloto subject of Special Proceeding No. 2176 had previously been revoked by her.
• Res Judicata: Petitioner argued that the lower court erred in holding that the petition for probate was barred by prior judgment, that the matter concerned was res adjudicata by reason of the November 16, 1968 order in Special Proceeding No. 1736.
• Dismissal: Petitioner maintained that the lower court therefore erred in dismissing the petition for probate instead of giving it due course.

• Revocation by Destruction: Respondent countered that the alleged will sought to be probated had been destroyed and revoked by the testatrix.
• Res Judicata: Respondent argued that the instant petition for probate was barred by prior judgment or order in Special Proceeding No. 1736.
• Extinction of Estate: Respondent maintained that the estate of Adriana Maloto had already passed out of existence and title thereto had already vested in the distributees or their assigns.
• Estoppel and Lack of Interest: Respondent argued that petitioners Aldina Maloto Casiano and Constancio Maloto were estopped from seeking probate, having ceased to be interested parties.

• Jurisdiction and Propriety of Probate in Intestate Proceeding: Whether the probate of the discovered will could be entertained and decided in the closed intestate Special Proceeding No. 1736, including a finding that the will had been revoked.
• Res Judicata: Whether the November 16, 1968 order denying reopening in Special Proceeding No. 1736 barred the separate petition for probate in Special Proceeding No. 2176.

• Jurisdiction and Propriety of Probate in Intestate Proceeding: No. Probate could not be entertained in Special Proceeding No. 1736, the reopening motion having been denied as filed out of time, and revocation could not properly be determined therein.
• Res Judicata: No. The November 16, 1968 order was not a bar to the separate probate petition, the proper remedy being an independent proceeding for probate.

• Jurisdiction and Propriety of Probate in Intestate Proceeding: The probate court had no jurisdiction to entertain probate of the alleged will in Special Proceeding No. 1736, the motion to reopen having been denied because filed out of time. Moreover, a finding in an intestate estate proceeding that the discovered will had been revoked was held improper. This was reinforced by the intestate court's own statement that movants should have filed a separate action for probate, and by the prior directive that petitioners initiate a separate proceeding for probate of the will in question.
• Res Judicata: Because a separate probate proceeding was the appropriate remedy, the November 16, 1968 order in the intestate case could not preclude the present petition. The prior denial, grounded on timeliness rather than a valid probate adjudication on the merits with jurisdiction, did not settle allowance or revocation for purposes of Special Proceeding No. 2176. Accordingly, dismissal on res judicata ground was reversed and a hearing on the merits was required.

• Separate probate proceeding for after-discovered will — Where a will is discovered after settlement of an intestate estate, allowance must be sought in a separate probate proceeding rather than by reopening the intestate case out of time; an intestate court without jurisdiction over such probate cannot make a binding determination of revocation.
• Res judicata inapplicable without jurisdictional adjudication on the merits — An order denying reopening of an intestate proceeding as filed out of time, even if accompanied by an incidental finding of revocation, does not bar a subsequent independent petition for probate of the alleged will.

• "THE COURT RESOLVED to dismiss the petition for certiorari and mandamus, without passing on the issue of whether or not the petitioners appeal from the order of November 16, 1968 of respondent Judge was made on time, it appearing that the more appropriate remedy of petitioners in the premises stated in the petition is for petitioners to initiate a separate proceeding for the probate of the alleged will in question." — States the controlling procedural directive that preserved a separate probate remedy despite dismissal of the extraordinary writ.
• "Movants should have filed a separate action for the probate of the Will." — Records the intestate court's own recognition that probate could not properly be resolved within Special Proceeding No. 1736.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, Martin and Gurerrero, JJ., concur.