Manalo vs. Paredes

A judgment in a probate proceeding, being a proceeding in rem, is binding on all persons interested in the will, and a new application for probate of the same will is barred by res judicata. The extraordinary remedy of mandamus cannot be used to review a prior probate judgment where the remedy of appeal was available but not taken.

Florencio Manalo, as guardian of the minors Lazaro Mendieta and Daria Mendieta, filed the petition. The minors were alleged children of the deceased Francisco Villegas and were named as legatees in a supposed will. The case arose from a prior administration proceeding and two earlier probate applications for the same will, all before the Court of First Instance of Laguna. The Philippine Food Company was the applicant in a separate registration case involving land that was the subject of the supposed will.

Francisco Villegas died, and on March 22, 1924, his surviving spouse, Laureana Hidalgo, filed an application for letters of administration of his estate, alleging that he died intestate. In the course of that administration proceeding, on May 5, 1924, Justina Mendieta, Lazaro Mendieta, Daria Mendieta, and Melecio Fule, the supposed testamentary executor, filed a motion praying for the probate of a supposed will of Francisco Villegas, wherein most of his property was given as a legacy to Justina Mendieta, her children, and the legitimate wife of the deceased.

On August 8, 1924, attorneys on behalf of the executor Melecio Fule filed a motion stating that the attesting witnesses, Exequiel Evidente and Albino Villegas, had assured them that the supposed will had not been executed by Francisco Villegas in accordance with law, and that the executor no longer took interest in the case. On June 5, 1924, Justina Mendieta, having received an order to produce the supposed will, filed a motion stating that she knew of no will executed by the deceased except the one she had him sign on January 18, 1924, which he signed at her request and inducement so that her children begotten by him might have a share in his estate, and that the deceased signed the will only in her presence and compelled by pressure exerted by her.

Notwithstanding these motions, the court on September 3, 1924, ordered the publication in the newspaper El Debate of the application for probate, setting the hearing for October 3, 1924. On September 5, 1924, Justina Mendieta, together with her children, filed another application for probate of the same will. At the trial held October 16, 1924, the court appointed Justina Mendieta as guardian ad litem of the minors. Laureana Hidalgo entered her objection to the probate, and the court proceeded to hear the evidence of the parties, with all the attesting witnesses — Tomas Dizon, Albino Villegas, and Exequiel Evidente — testifying.

When the case was called for continuation on October 24, 1924, Justina Mendieta, for herself and as guardian ad litem of her minor children, and Laureana Hidalgo submitted an agreement wherein Justina stated that she withdrew her application for probate on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify probate, and prayed that the will be held not allowable to probate and that the deceased died intestate, leaving as heirs only his legitimate wife and his two adulterous children, with the property distributed in accordance with the agreement. By order dated October 25, 1924, the court approved the stipulation and rendered judgment holding that the supposed will could not be probated. No appeal was taken from this order.

On January 7, 1925, Gelacio Malihan, claiming to be first cousin of the deceased, filed a new application for probate of the same will. The will sought to be probated in this new application was the same one that was the subject of the earlier applications of May 5, 1924, and September 5, 1924, the only difference being the applicants. The petitioner, as guardian of the minors Lazaro and Daria Mendieta, then commenced this original action for mandamus to compel publication of the new probate petition and for injunction to suspend the registration case proceedings involving the land.

• Mandamus to Compel Publication: Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent judge to order the publication of the petition for probate of the will of Francisco Villegas in case No. 4217, pursuant to the alleged ministerial duty imposed by section 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
• Injunction to Suspend Registration Case: Petitioner sought an injunction to suspend the proceedings in registration case No. 954, wherein the Philippine Food Company was the applicant and the minors were opponents, until the termination of the probate proceeding in which the minors were named legatees of the land involved.
• Referral for Investigation: Petitioner moved that the record of the proceeding be transmitted to the Attorney-General for investigation to discover any irregularity or fraud that may have been committed and to institute proper proceedings against those found guilty.

N/A — The decision does not recount the respondents' specific arguments in detail.

• Res Judicata Effect of Prior Probate Judgment: Whether the prior judgment in the earlier probate proceeding, which declared that Francisco Villegas died intestate, bars a new application for probate of the same will.
• Propriety of Mandamus: Whether the extraordinary remedy of mandamus is available to compel publication of a new probate application where the prior judgment was not appealed.

• Res Judicata Effect of Prior Probate Judgment: No. The prior judgment in the earlier probate proceeding is binding on all persons interested in the will, including Gelacio Malihan and the petitioner's wards, because the probate proceeding is a proceeding in rem and the court acquired jurisdiction over all interested persons through the publication of notice.
• Propriety of Mandamus: No. Mandamus, being an extraordinary remedy, cannot be used in lieu of appeal or writ of error, especially where the parties interested have agreed to disregard the testamentary provisions and divide the estate as they pleased.

• Res Judicata Effect of Prior Probate Judgment: The proceeding for the probate of a will is a proceeding in rem, and the court acquires jurisdiction over all persons interested through the publication of the notice prescribed by section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Any order entered is binding against all of them. Through the publication ordered by the Court of First Instance of Laguna of the application for probate filed by Justina Mendieta and her minor children and Melecio Fule, the court acquired jurisdiction over all persons interested in the supposed will, including Gelacio Malihan. The court tried the application, heard the testimony of the attesting witnesses, and approved the stipulation wherein Justina Mendieta withdrew her application and declared that Francisco Villegas died intestate. All parties became bound by that judgment. If any of them or other persons interested were not satisfied with the court's decision, they had the remedy of appeal to correct any injustice, and cannot now obtain a review of the proceeding through the special remedy of mandamus.
• Propriety of Mandamus: The extraordinary remedy of mandamus cannot be used in lieu of appeal or writ of error, especially when the parties interested have agreed to disregard the testamentary provisions and divide the estate as they pleased, each taking what pertained to him. The first ground of the petition for mandamus is a consequence of the second and need not be dealt with separately. As to the motion to transmit the record to the Attorney-General for investigation, the Court will take no action unless specific charges are filed.

• Probate proceedings as proceedings in rem — A proceeding for the probate of a will is a proceeding in rem, and the court acquires jurisdiction over all persons interested through the publication of the notice prescribed by section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Any order entered is binding against all of them. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the prior probate judgment bound all interested parties, including Gelacio Malihan, who filed the new application.
• Res judicata in probate proceedings — A judgment in a probate proceeding, once final, binds all parties and persons interested in the will. The Court applied this doctrine to bar a new application for probate of the same will, where the prior judgment declared the decedent to have died intestate and no appeal was taken.
• Mandamus not a substitute for appeal — The extraordinary remedy of mandamus cannot be used in lieu of appeal or writ of error. The Court applied this doctrine to deny the petition, holding that the remedy of appeal was available to correct any injustice in the prior probate judgment.

• "The proceeding for the probate of a will is a proceeding in rem (40 Cyc., p. 1265), and the court acquires jurisdiction over all the persons interested through the publication of the notice prescribed by section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and any order that may be entered is binding against all of them." — This passage establishes the foundational doctrine that probate proceedings are in rem, which is the basis for the Court's res judicata analysis.
• "all the parties became bound by said judgment; and if any of them or other persons interested were not satisfied with the court's decision, they had the remedy of appeal to correct any injustice that might have been committed, and cannot now through the special remedy of mandamus, obtain a review of the proceeding upon a new application for the probate of the same will." — This passage articulates the Court's core reasoning that the prior judgment is binding and that mandamus cannot substitute for the remedy of appeal.
• "because this remedy, being extraordinary, cannot be used in lieu of appeal, or writ of error (26 Cyc., 177; 18 R.C.L., par. 443); especially when the parties interested have agreed to disregard the testamentary provisions and divide the estate as they pleased, each of them taking what pertained to him (25 R.C.L., 359)." — This passage states the rule that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that cannot replace appeal, particularly where parties have voluntarily agreed to a distribution.

• 40 Cyc., p. 1265 — Cited as authority for the doctrine that a probate proceeding is a proceeding in rem.
• 26 Cyc., 177; 18 R.C.L., par. 443 — Cited as authority for the rule that mandamus, being an extraordinary remedy, cannot be used in lieu of appeal or writ of error.
• 25 R.C.L., 359 — Cited as authority for the principle that parties who have agreed to disregard testamentary provisions and divide the estate as they pleased are bound by their agreement.

• Section 630, Code of Civil Procedure — The provision prescribing the publication of notice in probate proceedings. The Court applied this provision to hold that the court acquired jurisdiction over all persons interested in the will through the publication ordered in the earlier probate proceeding.
• Section 330, Code of Civil Procedure — The provision imposing a ministerial duty on the court with respect to probate applications. The petitioner invoked this provision as the basis for the alleged ministerial duty to publish the new probate application, but the Court held that mandamus could not compel compliance where the prior judgment was binding.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions are noted in the decision.