Generoso Abut vs. Felipe Abut

A probate court's jurisdiction, once acquired through the filing of a petition and the publication of notice, continues until the termination of the case and is not divested by the death of the original petitioner. The admission of an amended petition substituting a new petitioner who is a person interested in the estate does not require a new publication, because the proceeding is in rem and jurisdiction extends to all persons interested in the will or the settlement of the estate.

Generoso Abut, one of the children of the deceased Cipriano Abut by his second marriage, was named executor in a will allegedly executed by the deceased. He filed a petition for the probate of the will before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental. Opposition was filed by the children of Cipriano Abut by his first marriage, namely Felipe Abut, Presentacion de Rodriguez, and Absoluto Abut.

On August 4, 1965, Generoso Abut, one of the children of the deceased Cipriano Abut by his second marriage and the person named as executor in a will allegedly executed by the deceased, filed a petition before the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental praying that after due notice and hearing the will be approved and allowed and that letters testamentary issue in his favor. In an amended order dated September 1, 1965, the court a quo motu proprio set the petition for hearing and further directed compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76 of the Rules of Court, which require publication of the notice of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation and notification of heirs, devisees, legatees, and executors by mail or personal service. These procedural steps admittedly took place.

Opposition to the petition was filed by the children of Cipriano Abut by his first marriage, namely, Felipe Abut, Presentacion de Rodriguez, and Absoluto Abut, now appellees. During the pendency of the case below but before the court a quo could even start the formal hearing of the petition, which had been delayed by several postponements, Generoso Abut died on January 10, 1966.

This eventuality prompted Gavina Abut, a sister of Generoso Abut and an heir and devisee under the will of the testator, to ask the court a quo to substitute her in lieu of Generoso Abut and to admit an amended petition wherein she prayed that the probate of the will be allowed and that letters of administration with the will annexed be issued in her favor. The amended petition alleged that the will was delivered to her by Generoso Abut before his death and that it was now in her custody and possession. The amended petition also named additional heirs not included in the original petition — the widow and minor children of Generoso Abut.

For reasons stated in its order of July 2, 1966, the court a quo dismissed the petition originally brought by the deceased Generoso Abut, "without prejudice to the filing of another petition pursuant to the requirements of the Rules of Court," on the theory that publication of the petition is a jurisdictional matter intended to inform all interested parties and that the amended petition required a new publication to invest the court with jurisdiction.

• Continuation of Jurisdiction: Petitioner-appellant Gavina Abut argued that after the court had acquired jurisdiction over the case involving probate of the will, the demise of the original petitioner during the pendency of the proceeding did not divest the court of such jurisdiction and did not preclude the continuation of the case.
• No New Publication Required: Petitioner-appellant argued that the amended petition, filed by a person admittedly having an interest in the estate, seeking to substitute her in place of the original petitioner but with a similar prayer for the allowance of the same will, did not require a new publication in order to invest the court with jurisdiction.

• Jurisdictional Nature of Publication: The oppositors-appellees maintained that publication of the petition is a jurisdictional matter intended to inform whomsoever may be interested in the petition and to afford him or her an opportunity to assert his or her rights, and that the amended petition, which named additional heirs, required new publication.

• Effect of Petitioner's Death on Jurisdiction: Whether the probate court correctly dismissed the petition simply because the original petitioner — who was the executor named in the will sought to be probated — died before the petition could be heard and/or terminated.
• Need for New Publication of Amended Petition: Whether the amended petition filed by Gavina Abut, seeking to substitute her in place of the original petitioner but with a similar prayer for the allowance of the same will, required a new publication in order to invest the court with jurisdiction.

• Effect of Petitioner's Death on Jurisdiction: No. The jurisdiction of the court became vested upon the filing of the original petition and upon compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76, and jurisdiction once acquired continues until the termination of the case, remaining unaffected by subsequent events such as the death of the original petitioner.
• Need for New Publication of Amended Petition: No. A proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem, such that with the corresponding publication of the petition the court's jurisdiction extends to all persons interested in the will or in the settlement of the estate; the fact that the amended petition named additional heirs did not require that notice of the amended petition be published anew.

• Effect of Petitioner's Death on Jurisdiction: The Court found the dismissal of the original petition for probate and the refusal of the probate court to admit the amended petition without a new publication thereof to be untenable. The jurisdiction of the court became vested upon the filing of the original petition and upon compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76. Jurisdiction of the court once acquired continues until the termination of the case, and remains unaffected by subsequent events. The court below erred in holding that it was divested of jurisdiction just because the original petitioner died before the petition could be formally heard. Parties who could have come in and opposed the original petition, as the appellees did, could still come in and oppose the amended petition, having already been notified of the pendency of the proceeding by the publication of the notice thereof.

• Need for New Publication of Amended Petition: A proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem, such that with the corresponding publication of the petition the court's jurisdiction extends to all persons interested in said will or in the settlement of the estate of the deceased. The fact that the amended petition named additional heirs not included in the original petition did not require that notice of the amended petition be published anew. All that Section 4 of Rule 76 provides is that those heirs be notified of the hearing for the probate of the will, either by mail or personally. Citing Perez vs. Perez, the Court explained that service of notice on individual heirs or legatees or devisees is a matter of procedural convenience, not jurisdictional requisite, and that even if the names of some legatees or heirs had been omitted from the petition for allowance of the will, the decree allowing the will does not ipso facto become void for want of jurisdiction. The admission of the amended petition does not mean that Gavina Abut's prayer that she be appointed administratrix with the will annexed is necessarily meritorious; it simply recognizes that since the lower court has acquired jurisdiction over the res, such jurisdiction continues until the termination of the case. The first question that the lower court should hear and decide is the probate of the will, and the question of whether Gavina Abut should be appointed administratrix must be decided on the basis of the facts to be presented and after the will is proved and allowed, as provided in Section 6 of Rule 78.

• Jurisdiction in rem in probate proceedings — A proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem, such that with the corresponding publication of the petition the court's jurisdiction extends to all persons interested in the will or in the settlement of the estate of the deceased. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the court acquired jurisdiction over all persons interested in the estate through the publication of the petition, and that the omission of notice to individual heirs is a mere procedural error, not a jurisdictional defect.

• Continuation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction of the court once acquired continues until the termination of the case and remains unaffected by subsequent events. The Court applied this principle to hold that the death of the original petitioner during the pendency of the probate proceeding did not divest the court of jurisdiction.

• "The jurisdiction of the court became vested upon the filing of the original petition and upon compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76." — This passage states the core ratio decidendi: jurisdiction in probate proceedings attaches upon filing and compliance with the publication and notice requirements, not upon the continued existence of the original petitioner.

• "A proceeding for the probate of a will is one in rem, such that with the corresponding publication of the petition the court's jurisdiction extends to all persons interested in said will or in the settlement of the estate of the deceased." — This passage defines the in rem character of probate proceedings, which is the doctrinal foundation for the holding that new publication is not required for the amended petition.

• "Service of notice on individual heirs or legatees or devisees is a matter of procedural convenience, not jurisdictional requisite." — This passage, quoted from Perez vs. Perez, establishes that individual notice to heirs is not a jurisdictional requirement, so the naming of additional heirs in the amended petition did not necessitate new publication.

• "Jurisdiction of the court once acquired continues until the termination of the case, and remains unaffected by subsequent events." — This passage articulates the principle of continuing jurisdiction, which the Court applied to hold that the original petitioner's death did not divest the court of jurisdiction.

• Perez vs. Perez, 105 Phil. 1132 — Controlling precedent cited for the proposition that omission of notice to individual heirs does not affect the jurisdiction of the court and constitutes a mere procedural error, and that the court acquires jurisdiction over all persons interested in the estate through the publication of the petition in the newspapers.

• Rodriguez, et al. vs. Borja, et al., 17 SCRA 418 — Cited in support of the proposition that jurisdiction becomes vested upon the filing of the original petition and compliance with Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76.

• Icasiano vs. Icasiano, 11 SCRA 422, 430 — Cited for the principle that jurisdiction of the court once acquired continues until the termination of the case.

• In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 159 — Cited in Perez vs. Perez and relied upon for the rule that the court acquires jurisdiction over all persons interested in the estate through the publication of the petition in the newspapers.

• Jocson vs. Nable, 48 O.G. 90 — Cited in Perez vs. Perez for the proposition that omission of notice is a mere procedural error that may or may not be the basis of reversal.

• Section 3, Rule 76, Rules of Court — Requires the court to fix a time and place for proving the will and to cause notice of such time and place to be published three weeks successively in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. The Court held that compliance with this provision, together with the filing of the original petition, vested the court with jurisdiction.

• Section 4, Rule 76, Rules of Court — Requires the court to cause copies of the notice of the time and place fixed for proving the will to be addressed to the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator resident in the Philippines, deposited in the post office with postage prepaid at least twenty days before the hearing, or personally served at least ten days before the day of hearing. The Court held that this provision only requires notification of heirs, not new publication, and that such notice is a matter of procedural convenience, not a jurisdictional requisite.

• Section 6, Rule 78, Rules of Court — Provides for the appointment of an administrator with the will annexed after the will is proved and allowed. The Court cited this provision to clarify that the admission of the amended petition does not mean Gavina Abut's prayer for appointment as administratrix is necessarily meritorious, but that this question must be decided after the will is proved and allowed.

Reyes, J.B.L., Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, and Antonio, JJ., concurred. Castro, J., did not take part. Concepcion, C.J., was on leave.