G.R. No.

L-29300 June 21, 1978

PEDRO D. H. GALLANOSA, CORAZON GRECIA-GALLONOSA an ADOL!O !OR"AJADA, #$e
e%ea&e Pe'o Ga((ano&a )e*n+ &u)&#*#u#e ), $*& (e+a( $e*'&, na-e(, $*& a)o.e-na-e
/*o/ an $*& %$*('en, ISIDRO GALLANOSA an LED0 GALLANOSA, an +'an%$*('en
na-e I1ELDA "ECLA GALLANOSA an ROSARIO 2RIGIDA GALLANOSA, %$*('en o3 #$e
(a#e SI4A"5NA GALLANOSA, &on o3 Pe'o D.H. GALLONOSA, petitioners,
vs.
HON. 52ALDO 0. ARCANGEL, Ju+e o3 2'an%$ I o3 #$e Cou'# o3 !*'&# In&#an%e o3 So'&o+on
an !LOREN"INO G. HI"OSIS, CASIANO G. HI"OSIS, "EO"I1O G. HI"OSIS, 6IC"ORIO G.
HI"OSIS, E1ILIA G. HI"OSIS 6DA. DE CR5Z, JOA75IN R. HI"OSIS 6DA. DE CR5Z, JOA75IN
R. HI"OSIS, !LOREN"INO R. HI"OSIS, 6IRGINIA R. 1I"OSIS, DE2ORAH R. HI"OSIS,
EDIL2ER"O R. HI"OSIS, LEONOR R. HI"OSIS, NOR1A R. HI"OSIS-6ILLAN5E6A, LEONCIO R.
HI"OSIS, -*no'& ANGEL R. HI"OSIS an RODOL!O R. HI"OSIS, 'e8'e&en#e ), #$e*' (e+a(
+ua'*an an -o#$e' LO5RDES REL5CIO 6DA. DE HI"OSIS, PE"RONA HI"OSIS-2AL2IDO,
1ODES"O HI"OSIS-GACILO, CLE"O HI"OSIS, AG5S"IN HI"OSIS-!OR"ES, "O1ASA
HI"OSIS-2ANARES 6DA. DE 2ORRAS, CONRADA HI"OSIS-2ANARES !RANCHE,
RES"I"5"O HI"OSIS-2ANARES, DA1IAN HI"OSIS-2ANARES, !IDEL HI"OSIS-2ANARES,
S5SANA HI"OSIS-2ANARES RODRIG5EZ, JOSE HI"OSIS, LOLI"A HI"OSIS-2ANEGA, -*no'&
1ILAGROS HI"OSIS-2ANEGA, ALICIA HI"OSIS-2ANEGA AND ELISA HI"OSIS-2ANEGA,
'e8'e&en#e ), #$e*' (e+a( +ua'*an an 3a#$e' ERNES"O 2ANEGA, !ELICI"AS HI"OSIS-
PENA!LOR, GENO6E6A HI"OSIS-ADRIA"ICO, 1AN5EL HI"OSIS, PEDRO HI"OSIS, LI2RA"A
HI"OSIS-2AL1ES, J5ANI"A HI"OSIS-GA2I"O 6DA. DE GA2AS, 1A5RA HI"OSIS-GA2I"O
6DA. DE GANOLA an LEONA HI"OSIS-GA2I"O GA12A, respondents.
Haile Frivaldo for petitioners.
Joaquin R Mitosis for private respondents.

A75INO, J.:
In this special civil action of certiorari, filed on July 29, 1968, the petitioners seek to annul the orders
of respondent Judge dated May 3 trial June 1, 1968, !herein he reconsidered his order of January
1", 1968, dis#issing, on the ground of prescription, the co#plaint in $ivil $ase %o. 2233 of the
$ourt of &irst Instance of 'orsogon.
(he case involves the si)ty*one parcels of land in 'orsogon left +y &lorentino ,itosis, !ith
an esti#ated value of -.",""", trial clai#s for da#ages e)ceeding one #illion pesos. (he
undisputed facts are as follo!s/
1. &lorentino ,itosis e)ecuted a !ill in the 0icol dialect on June 19, 1938 !hen he !as eighty years
old. ,e died on May 26, 1939 at Irosin, 'orsogon. 1 childless !ido!er, he as survived +y his
+rother, 2eon ,itosis. ,is other +rothers, na#ed Juan, (ito 3Juancito4, 2eoncio 31loncio4 trial
1polonio and only sister, (eodora, !ere all dead.
2. 5n June 26, 1939 a petition for the pro+ate of his !ill !as filed in the $ourt of &irst Instance of
'orsogon 3'pecial -roceeding %o. 3114. The notice of hearing was duly published. In that !ill,
&lorentino +e7ueathed his one*half share in the con8ugal estate to his second !ife, (ecla 9ollentas,
and, should (ecla predecease hi#, as !as the case, his one*half share !ould +e assigned to the
spouses -edro :allanosa and $ora;on :recia, the reason +eing that -edro, (ecla<s son +y her first
#arriage, gre! up under the care of &lorentino= he had treated -edro as his foster child, and -edro
has rendered services to &lorentino and (ecla. &lorentino like!ise +e7ueathed his separate
properties consisting of three parcels of a+aca land and parcel of riceland to his protege
3sasacuyang ataman4, 1dolfo &orta8ada, a #inor.
3. 5pposition to the pro+ate of the !ill !as registered +y the testator<s legal heirs, na#ely, his
surviving +rother, 2eon, trial his nephe!s trial nieces. 1fter a hearing, !herein the oppositors did not
present any evidence in support of their opposition, Judge -a+lo '. >ivera, in his decision of
5cto+er 2, 1939, ad#itted the !ill to pro+ate and appointed :allanosa as e)ecutor. Judge >ivera
specifically found that the testator e)ecuted his last !ill ?go;ando de +uena salud y facultades
#entales y no o+rando en virtud de a#ena;a, fraude o influencia inde+ida.?
6. 5n 5cto+er 26, 1961, the testa#entary heirs, the :allanosa spouses trial 1dolfo &orta8ada,
su+#itted a pro8ect of partition covering si)ty*one parcels of land located in various parts of
'orsogon, large cattle trial several pieces of personal property !hich !ere distri+uted in accordance
!ith &lorentino<s !ill. (he heirs assu#ed the o+ligations of the estate a#ounting to -,129.2 in the
portion of -2,36.62 for 1dolfo &orta8ada and -6,.2.8. for the :allanosa spouses. (he pro8ect of
partition !as approved +y Judge 9oroteo 1#ador in his order of March 13, 1963, thus confir#ing
the heirs< possession of their respective shares. (he testator<s legal heirs did not appeal fro# the
decree of pro+ate trial fro# the order of partition trial distri+ution.
.. 5n &e+ruary 2", 19.2, 2eon ,itosis trial the heirs of &lorentino<s deceased +rothers trial sisters
instituted an action in the $ourt of &irst Instance of 'orsogon against -edro :allanosa for the
recovery of the said si)ty*one parcels of land. (hey alleged that they, +y the#selves or through their
predecessors*in*interest, had +een in continuous possession of those lands en concepto de
dueo trial that :allanosa entered those lands in 19.1 trial asserted o!nership over the lands. (hey
prayed that they +e declared the o!ners of the lands trial that they +e restored to the possession
thereof. (hey also clai#ed da#ages 3$ivil $ase %o. 6964.
6. :allanosa #oved to dis#iss the a+ove co#plaint for lack of cause of action trial on the ground of
+ar +y the prior 8udg#ent in the pro+ate proceeding. Judge 1natolio $. Ma@alac dis#iss the
co#plaint on the ground of res udicata in his order of 1ugust 16, 19.2 !herein he said/
It also appears that the plaintiffs andAor their predecessors*in*interest had intervened
in the testate proceedings in $ivil $ase %o. 311 of this $ourt for* the purpose of
contesting the pro+ate of the !ill of 3the4 late &lorentino ,itosis= trial had their
opposition prospered trial the !ill denied of pro+ate, the proceedings !ould have
+een converted into one of intestacy 31rt. 96" $ivil $ode4 and the settle#ent of the
estate of the said deceased !ould have +een #ade in accordance !ith the
provisions of la! governing legal or intestate succession ... , in !hich case the said
plaintiffs, as the nearest of kin or legal heirs of said &lorentino Mitosis, !ould have
succeeded to the o!nership and possession of the 61 parcels of land in 7uestion
for#ing part of his estate 3art. 1""3, $ivil $ode4.
,o!ever, the derision of the $ourt !as adverse to the#, !hen it their opposition trial
ordered the pro+ate of his !ill. &ro# this decision 31nne) B4 legali;ing the said !ill,
the oppositors did not file any appeal !ithin the period fi)ed +y la!, despite the fact
that they !ere duly notified thereof, so that the said decision had +eco#e final trial it
no! constitutes a +ar to any action that the plaintiffs #ay institute for the purpose of
a redeter#ination of their rights to inherit the properties of the late &lorentino ,itosis.
In other !ords, the said decision of this $ourt in $ivil $ase special 4 %o. 311, in
!hich the herein plaintiffs or their predecessors*in*interest had intervened as parties
oppositors, constitutes a final 8udicial deter#ination of the issue that the said
plaintiffs, as ordinary heirs, have no legal rights to succeed to any of the properties of
the late &lorentino ,itosis= conse7uently, their present clai# to the o!nership trial
possession of the 61 parcels of land in 7uestion is !ithout any legal #erit or +asis.
. (he plaintiffs did not appeal fro# that order of dis#issal !hich should have set the #atter at rest.
0ut the sa#e plaintiffs or oppositors to the pro+ate of the !ill, trial their heirs, !ith a persistence
+efitting a #ore #eritorious case, filed on 'epte#+er 21, 196, or fifteen years after the dis#issal of
$ivil $ase %o. 696 trial t!enty*eight years after the pro+ate of the !ill another action in the sa#e
court against the :allanosa spouses trial 1dolfo &orta8ada for the ?annul#ent? of the !ill of
&lorentino ,itosis trial and for the recovery of the sa#e si)ty*one parcels of land. (hey prayed for the
appoint#ent of a receiver.
8. 1s +asis of their co#plaint, they alleged that the :allanosa spouses, through fraud trial deceit,
caused the e)ecution trial si#ulation of the docu#ent purporting to +e the last !ill trial testa#ent of
&lorentino ,itosis. Chile in their 19.2 co#plaint the ga#e plaintiffs alleged that they !ere in
possession of the lands in 7uestion, in their 196 co#plaint they ad#itted that since 1939, or fro#
the death of &lorentino ,itosis, the defendants 3no! the petitioners4 have +een in possession of the
disputed lands 3-ar. DIE of the co#plaint, p. ", >ollo in $ivil $ase %o. ..., :u+at 0ranch, !hich
!as transferred to 0ranch I in 'orsogon to!n !here 'pecial -roceeding %o. 311 trial $ivil $ase
%o. 696 !ere decided trial !hich !as re*docketed as $ivil $ase %o. 22334.
9. 1s already stated, that 196 co#plaint, upon #otion of the defendants, no! the petitioners, !as
dis#issed +y respondent Judge. (he plaintiffs filed a #otion for reconsideration >espondent Judge.
granted it trial set aside the order of dis#issal. ,e denied defendants< #otion for the reconsideration
of his order setting aside that dis#issal order.
(he petitioners or the defendants +elo! contend in this certiorari case that the lo!er court has no
8urisdiction to set aside the 1939 decree of pro+ate trial the 19.2 order of dis#issal in $ivil $ase %o.
696 trial that it acted !ith grave a+use of discretion in not dis#issing private respondents< 196
co#plaint.
(he issue is !hether, under the facts set forth a+ove, the private respondents have a cause of action
the ?annul#ent? of the !ill of &lorentino ,itosis trial for the recovery of the si)ty*one parcels of land
ad8udicated under that !ill to the petitioners.
Ce hold that the lo!er court co##itted a grave a+use of discretion in reconsideration its order of
dis#issal trial in ignoring the 1939 testa#entary case trial the 19.2 $ivil $ase %o. 696 !hich is the
sa#e as the instant 196 case.
1 rudi#entary kno!ledge of su+stantive la! trial procedure is sufficient for an ordinary la!yer to
conclude upon a causal perusal of the 196 co#plaint that it is +aseless trial un!arranted.
Chat the plaintiffs seek is the ?annul#ent? of a last !ill trial testa#ent duly pro+ated in 1939 +y the
lo!er court itself. (he proceeding is coupled !ith an action to recover the lands ad8udicated to the
defendants +y the sa#e court in 1963 +y virtue of the pro+ated !ill, !hich action is a resuscitation of
(he co#plaint of the sa#e parties that the sa#e court dis#issed in 19.2.
It is evident fro# the allegations of the co#plaint trial fro# defendants< #otion to dis#iss that
plaintiffs< 196 action is +arred +y res udicata, a dou+le*+arrelled defense, trial +y prescription,
ac7uisitive trial e)tinctive, or +y !hat are kno!n in the us civile trial the us
gentium as usucapio, longi temporis possesio and praescriptio 3'ee >a#os vs. >a#os, 2*1982,
9ece#+er 3, 196, 61 '$>1 2864.
5ur procedural la! does not sanction an action for the ?annul#ent? of a !ill. In order that a !ill #ay
take effect, it has to +e pro+ated, legali;ed or allo!ed in the proper testa#entary proceeding. (he
pro+ate of the !ill is #andatory 31rt. 838, $ivil $ode= sec. 1, >ule ., for#erly sec. 1, >ule 6, >ules
of $ourt= :uevara vs. :uevara, 6 -hil. 69= :uevara vs. :uevara, 98 -hil. 2694.
(he testa#entary proceeding is a special proceeding for the settle#ent of the testator<s estate. 1
special proceeding is distinct trial different fro# an ordinary action 3'ecs. 1 trial 2, >ule 2 trial sec. 1,
>ule 2, >ules of $ourt4.
Ce say that the defense of res udicata, as a ground for the dis#issal of plaintiffs< 196 co#plaint, is
a t!o*pronged defense +ecause 314 the 1939 trial 1963 decrees of pro+ate trial distri+ution in
'pecial -roceeding %o. 311 trial 324 the 19.2 order of dis#issal in $ivil $ase %o. 696 of the lo!er
court constitute +ars +y for#er 8udg#ent, >ule 39 of the >ules of $ourt provides/
'F$. 69. !ffect of udgments. G (he effect of a 8udg#ent or final order rendered +y
a court or 8udge of the -hilippines, having 8urisdiction to pronounce the 8udg#ent or
order, #ay +e as follo!s/
3a4 In case of a 8udg#ent or order against a specific thing, or in respect to the
pro+ate of a !ill or the ad#inistration of the estate of a deceased person, or in
respect to the personal, political, or legal condition or status of a particular person or
his relationship to another, the 8udg#ent or order is conclusive upon the title to the
thing the !ill or ad#inistration, or the condition, status or relationship of the person=
ho!ever, the pro+ate of a !ill or granting of letters of ad#inistration shall only +e
pri#a facie evidence of the death of the testator or intestate=
3+4 In other cases the 8udg#ent or order is, !ith respect to the #atter directly
ad8udged or as to any other #atter that could have +een raised in relation thereto,
conclusive +et!een the parties trial their successors in interest +y title su+se7uent to
the co##ence#ent of the action or special proceeding, litigating of the sa#e thing
trial under the sa#e title trial in the sa#e capacity=
3c4 In any other litigation +et!een the sa#e parties or their successors in interest,
that only is dee#ed to have +een ad8udged in a for#er 8udg#ent !hich appears
upon its face to have +een so ad8udged, or !hich !as actually trial necessarily
included therein or necessary thereto.
(he 1939 decree of pro+ate is conclusive as to the due e)ecution or for#al validity of the !ill 3'ec.
62., 1ct 19", sec. 1, >ule 6, no! sec. 1, >ule ., >ules of $ourt= 2ast par. of art. 838, $ivil $ode4.
(hat #eans that the testator !as of sound trial disposing #ind at the ti#e !hen he e)ecuted the !ill
and !as not acting under duress, #enace, fraud, or undue influence= that the !ill !as signed +y hi#
in the presence of the re7uired nu#+er of !itnesses, and that the !ill is genuine trial is not a forgery.
1ccordingly, these facts cannot again +e 7uestioned in a su+se7uent proceeding, not even in a
cri#inal action for the forgery of the !ill. 33 Moran<s $o##ents on the >ules of $ourt, 19" Fdition,
p. 39.= Manahan vs. Manahan, .8 -hil. 6684.
1fter the finality of the allo!ance of a !ill, the issue as to the voluntariness of its e)ecution cannot +e
raised any#ore 3'antos vs. 9e 0uenaventura, 2*229, 'epte#+er 22, 1966, 18 '$>1 64.
In "ustria vs. #entenilla, 21 -hil. 18", a ?petition for annul#ent of a !ill? !as not entertained after the
decree of pro+ate had +eco#e final. (hat case is su##ari;ed as follo!s/
$ills% &robate% "lledged Fraudulent $ill% "ppeal.G E. died. ,is !ill !as ad#itted to
pro+ate !ithout o+8ection. %o appeal !as taken fro# said order. It !as ad#itted that
due trial legal notice had +een given to all parties. &ifteen #onths after the date of
said order, a #otion !as presented in the lo!er court to have said !ill declared null
and void, for the reason that fraud had +een practised upon the deceased in the
#aking of his !ill.
,eld/ (hat under section 62. of 1ct %o. 19", the only ti#e given parties !ho are
displeased !ith the order ad#itting to pro+ate a !ill, for an appeal is the ti#e given
for appeals in ordinary actions= +ut !ithout deciding !hether or not an order
ad#itting a !ill to pro+ate !ill +e opened for fraud, after the ti#e allo!ed for an
appeal has e)pired, !hen no appeal is taken fro# an order pro+ating a !ill, the heirs
can not, in su+se7uent litigation in the sa#e proceedings, raise 7uestions relating to
its due e)ecution. (he pro+ate of a !ill is conclusive as to its due e)ecution trial as to
the testa#entary capacity of (he testator. 3'ee 1ustria vs. ,eirs of Eentenilla. 99
-hil. 1"694.
5n the other hand, the 1963 decree of ad8udication rendered +y the trial court in the testate
proceeding for the settle#ent of the estate of &lorentino ,itosis, having +een rendered in a
proceeding in rem' is under the a+ove7uoted section 693a4, +inding upon the !hole !orld 3Manalo
vs. -aredes, 6 -hil. 938= (n re Fstate of Johnson, 39 -hil. 1.6= 9e la $erna vs. -otot, 12" -hil.
1361, 1366= McMaster vs. ,entry >eiss#ann H $o., 68 -hil. 1624.
It is not only the 1939 pro+ate proceeding that can +e interposed as res udicata !ith respect to
private respondents< co#plaint, (he 19.2 order of dis#issal rendered +y Judge Ma@alac in $ivil
$ase %o. 696, a 8udg#ent in persona# !as an ad8udication on the #erits 3'ec. 6, >ule 3", old
>ules of $ourt4. It constitutes a +ar +y for#er 8udg#ent under the afore7uoted section 693+4
31ntica#ara vs. 5ng, 2*29689. 1pril 16, 1984.
(he plaintiffs or private respondents did not even +other to ask for the annul#ent of the
testa#entary proceeding trial the proceeding in $ivil $ase %o. 696. 5+viously, they reali;ed that the
final ad8udications in those cases have the +inding force of res udicata and that there is no ground,
nor is it ti#ely, to ask for the nullification of the final orders trial 8udg#ents in those t!o cases.
It is a funda#ental concept in the organi;ation of every 8ural syste#, a principle of pu+lic policy, that,
at the risk of occasional errors, 8udg#ents of courts should +eco#e final at so#e definite date fi)ed
+y la!. (nterest rei publicae ut finis sit litum. ?(he very o+8ect for !hich the courts !ere constituted
!as to put an end to controversies.? 39y $ay vs. $rossfield and 5<0rien, 38 -hil. .21/ -e@alosa vs.
(uason, 22 -hil, 3"3= 9e la $erna vs. -otot, supra4.
1fter the period for seeking relief fro# a final order or 8udg#ent under >ule 38 of the >ules of $ourt
has e)pired, a final 8udg#ent or order can +e set aside only on the grounds of 3a4 lack of 8urisdiction
or lack of due process of la! or 3+4 that the 8udg#ent !as o+tained +y #eans of e)trinsic or
collateral fraud. In the latter case, the period for annulling the 8udg#ent is four years fro# the
discovery of the fraud 32 Moran<s $o##ents on the >ules of $ourt, 19" Fdition, pp. 26.*266=
Mauricio vs. Eillanueva, 1"6 -hil. 11.94.
(o hurdle over the o+stacle of prescription, the trial court, naively adopting the theory of plaintiffs<
counsel, held that the action for the recovery of the lands had not prescri+ed +ecause the rule in
article 161" of the $ivil $ode, that ?the action or defense for the declaration of the ine)istence of
a contract does not prescri+e?, applies to wills.
(hat ruling is a glaring error. 1rticle 161" cannot possi+ly apply to last !ills trial testa#ents. (he trial
court trial plaintiffs< counsel relied upon the case of 9ingle vs. :uiller#o, 68 ". :. 661", allegedly
decided +y this $ourt, !hich cited the ruling in (ipton vs. Eelasco, 6 -hil. 6, that #ere lapse of ti#e
cannot give efficacy to voidcontracts, a ruling elevated to the category of a codal provision in article
161". (he )ingle case !as decided +y the $ourt of 1ppeals. Fven the trial court did not take pains
to verify the #isrepresentation of plaintiffs< counsel that the )ingle case !as decided +y this $ourt.
1n ele#entary kno!ledge of civil la! could have alerted the trial court to the egregious error of
plaintiffs< counsel in arguing that article 161" applies to !ills.
C,F>F&5>F, the lo!er court<s orders of May 3 trial June 1, 1968 are reversed trial set aside trial
its order of dis#issal dated January 1", 1968 is affir#ed. $osts against the private respondents.
'5 5>9F>F9.