Infante vs. Galing

The requirement of personal notice to known heirs, legatees, and devisees under Section 4, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court is mandatory and jurisdictional, and mere publication of the notice of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation does not satisfy this requirement where the residences of the interested parties are known to the probate court.

The petitioners are the named legatees and devisees in the last will and testament of the late Montserrat R-Infante y G-Pola, while private respondent Joaquin R-Infante is the petitioner in the probate proceedings. The petition for probate filed by private respondent specified the names and addresses of all petitioners as legatees and devisees, making their places of residence known to the probate court. Section 4, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court governs the requirement of notice to heirs, devisees, legatees, and executors in probate proceedings, mandating that copies of the notice of the time and place fixed for proving the will be mailed or personally served upon known interested parties.

On March 3, 1986, private respondent Joaquin R. Infante filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 166, a petition for the probate and allowance of the last will and testament of the late Montserrat R-Infante y G-Pola. The petition specified the names and addresses of the petitioners as legatees and devisees, all of whom resided in the Philippines, with addresses in Quezon City, Makati, San Juan, and Madrid, Spain.

On March 12, 1986, the probate court issued an order setting the petition for hearing on May 5, 1986 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning. The order was published in the "Nueva Era," a newspaper of general circulation in Metro Manila, once a week for three consecutive weeks. On the date of the hearing, no oppositor appeared, and the hearing was reset to May 12, 1986. On that date, the probate court issued an order designating the Branch Clerk of Court to receive evidence ex-parte, there being no opposition. Private respondent presented his evidence ex-parte, placing Arturo Arceo, one of the testamentary witnesses, on the witness stand, and was appointed executor during the proceedings.

On May 14, 1986, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of May 12, 1986, alleging that, as named legatees, no notices were sent to them as required by Section 4, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court, and praying that they be given a period of ten days within which to file their opposition to the probate of the will. On May 30, 1986, the probate court, acting on the opposition of private respondent and the reply thereto of petitioners, issued an order denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

Petitioners thereafter filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition, which was referred to the Court of Appeals. On January 13, 1987, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision dismissing the petition, holding that personal notice of probate proceedings to known legatees and devisees is not a jurisdictional requirement in the probate of a will, and that the requirement of notice on individual heirs, legatees, and devisees is merely a matter of procedural convenience to better satisfy in some instances the requirements of due process.

• Mandatory Nature of Notice Requirement: Petitioners argued that under Section 4, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court, the requirement of personal notice to known heirs, legatees, and devisees is mandatory, and its omission constitutes a reversible error for being constitutive of grave abuse of discretion.
• Error of the Court of Appeals: Petitioners contended that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that personal notice of probate proceedings to known legatees and devisees is not a jurisdictional requirement in the probate of a will.

• Sufficiency of Publication: Private respondent opposed petitioners' motion for reconsideration, apparently maintaining that the publication of the notice of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation for three consecutive weeks was sufficient compliance with the notice requirements for probate proceedings.

• Mandatory Notice Requirement: Whether the requirement of personal notice to known legatees and devisees under Section 4, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court is mandatory and jurisdictional in probate proceedings.
• Sufficiency of Publication: Whether mere publication of the notice of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation satisfies the notice requirement where the residences of the legatees and devisees are known to the probate court.

• Mandatory Notice Requirement: Yes. The requirement of personal notice to known heirs, legatees, and devisees under Section 4, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court is mandatory, and the probate court's failure to cause copies of the notice to be sent to petitioners, despite knowledge of their residences, constituted grave abuse of discretion.
• Sufficiency of Publication: No. The requirement of the law for the allowance of the will was not satisfied by mere publication of the notice of hearing for three weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province, where the residences of the legatees and devisees were known.

• Mandatory Notice Requirement: Section 4, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court provides that the court shall 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 at their places of residence, and deposited in the post office with the postage prepaid at least twenty days before the hearing, if such places of residence be known. The Court found that there was no question that the residences of the petitioners, as legatees and devisees, were known to the probate court, as the petition for the allowance of the will itself indicated their names and addresses. Despite such knowledge, the probate court did not cause copies of the notice to be sent to petitioners. The Court held that the requirement of the law for the allowance of the will was not satisfied by mere publication of the notice of hearing for three weeks in a newspaper of general circulation.

• Sufficiency of Publication: The Court distinguished the case of Joson vs. Nable, cited by the Court of Appeals, noting that in that case, the petitioners claimed that their residence was not the address alleged in the petition for probate, and the Court there held that individual notice upon heirs, legatees, and devisees is necessary only when they are known or when their places of residence are known. In the present case, the residences of the petitioners were known, as they were specified in the petition itself. The Court also cited Re: Testate Estate of Suntay, which stated that probate proceedings are proceedings in rem and for the validity of such proceedings, personal notice or publication or both to all interested parties must be made. The Court emphasized that the proceedings in that case were held at the back of interested parties without notice, and the will and its alleged probate could not be said to have been done in accordance with accepted basic and fundamental concepts and principles followed in the probate and allowance of wills.

• Mandatory Notice to Known Heirs, Legatees, and Devisees in Probate Proceedings — Under Section 4, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court, the court must 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 at their places of residence, deposited in the post office with postage prepaid at least twenty days before the hearing, if such places of residence be known. Personal service of copies of the notice at least ten days before the day of hearing is equivalent to mailing. This requirement is mandatory, and mere publication of the notice of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation does not satisfy it where the residences of the interested parties are known to the probate court.

• Nature of Probate Proceedings as Proceedings In Rem — Probate proceedings are proceedings in rem, and for the validity of such proceedings, personal notice or publication or both to all interested parties must be made. Where interested parties are known to reside in the Philippines and no notice was received by them, the proceedings cannot be deemed and accepted as proceedings leading to the probate or allowance of a will.

• "It is clear from the aforecited rule that notice of the time and place of the hearing for the allowance of a will shall be forwarded to the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees residing in the Philippines at their places of residence, if such places of residence be known." — This passage articulates the mandatory nature of the notice requirement under Section 4, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court, which is the central holding of the case.

• "The requirement of the law for the allowance of the will was not satisfied by mere publication of the notice of hearing for three (3) weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province." — This statement establishes that publication alone is insufficient where the residences of the legatees and devisees are known to the probate court, forming the basis for the Court's ruling.

• "Under the provision abovequoted, individual notice upon heirs, legatees and devisees is necessary only when they are known or when their places of residence are known. In other instances, such notice is not necessary and the court may acquire and exercise jurisdiction simply upon the publication of the notice in a newspaper of general circulation." — This quotation from Joson vs. Nable is cited by the Court to distinguish that case from the present one, where the residences of the petitioners were known.

• "It is a proceedings in rem and for the validity of such proceedings personal notice or by publication or both to all interested parties must be made." — This quotation from Re: Testate Estate of Suntay underscores the jurisdictional requirement of notice in probate proceedings, which the Court applied to the present case.

• Joson vs. Nable, 87 Phil. 337 — Distinguished by the Court. In that case, individual notice was not necessary because the true residence of the petitioners was not known, unlike in the present case where the residences of the legatees and devisees were specified in the petition for probate.
• Re: Testate Estate of Suntay, 95 Phil. 500 — Cited as authority for the proposition that probate proceedings are proceedings in rem and that personal notice or publication or both to all interested parties must be made for the validity of such proceedings.

• Section 4, Rule 76, Rules of Court — The provision 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 at their places of residence, deposited in the post office with postage prepaid at least twenty days before the hearing, if such places of residence be known. Personal service of copies of the notice at least ten days before the day of hearing is equivalent to mailing. The Court held that this requirement is mandatory and was violated by the probate court's failure to send notices to the petitioners despite knowledge of their residences.

Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Paras, and Sarmiento, JJ., concurred.