G.R. No.

L-29300 June 21, 1978 his foster child, and Pedro has rendered services to Florentino and Tecla. Florentino likewise
bequeathed his separate properties consisting of three parcels of abaca land and parcel of
PEDRO D. H. GALLANOSA, CORAZON GRECIA-GALLONOSA and ADOLFO FORTAJADA, riceland to his protege (sasacuyang ataman), Adolfo Fortajada, a minor.
the deceased Pedro Gallanosa being substituted by his legal heirs, namely his above-
named widow and his children, ISIDRO GALLANOSA and LEDY GALLANOSA, and 3. Opposition to the probate of the will was registered by the testator's legal heirs,
grandchildren named IMELDA TECLA GALLANOSA and ROSARIO BRIGIDA namely, his surviving brother, Leon, trial his nephews trial nieces. After a hearing, wherein the
GALLANOSA, children of the late SIKATUNA GALLANOSA, son of Pedro D.H. oppositors did not present any evidence in support of their opposition, Judge Pablo S. Rivera, in
GALLONOSA, petitioners, his decision of October 27, 1939, admitted the will to probate and appointed Gallanosa as
vs. executor. Judge Rivera specifically found that the testator executed his last will "gozando de
HON. UBALDO Y. ARCANGEL, Judge of Branch I of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon buena salud y facultades mentales y no obrando en virtud de amenaza, fraude o influencia
and FLORENTINO G. HITOSIS, CASIANO G. HITOSIS, TEOTIMO G. HITOSIS, VICTORIO G. indebida."
HITOSIS, EMILIA G. HITOSIS VDA. DE CRUZ, JOAQUIN R. HITOSIS VDA. DE CRUZ,
JOAQUIN R. HITOSIS, FLORENTINO R. HITOSIS, VIRGINIA R. MITOSIS, DEBORAH R. 4. On October 24, 1941, the testamentary heirs, the Gallanosa spouses trial Adolfo
HITOSIS, EDILBERTO R. HITOSIS, LEONOR R. HITOSIS, NORMA R. HITOSIS-VILLANUEVA, Fortajada, submitted a project of partition covering sixty-one parcels of land located in various
LEONCIO R. HITOSIS, minors ANGEL R. HITOSIS and RODOLFO R. HITOSIS, represented parts of Sorsogon, large cattle trial several pieces of personal property which were distributed in
by their legal guardian and mother LOURDES RELUCIO VDA. DE HITOSIS, PETRONA accordance with Florentino's will. The heirs assumed the obligations of the estate amounting to
HITOSIS-BALBIDO, MODESTO HITOSIS-GACILO, CLETO HITOSIS, AGUSTIN HITOSIS- P7,129.27 in the portion of P2,376.42 for Adolfo Fortajada and P4,752.85 for the Gallanosa
FORTES, TOMASA HITOSIS-BANARES VDA. DE BORRAS, CONRADA HITOSIS-BANARES spouses. The project of partition was approved by Judge Doroteo Amador in his order of March
FRANCHE, RESTITUTO HITOSIS-BANARES, DAMIAN HITOSIS-BANARES, FIDEL HITOSIS- 13, 1943, thus confirming the heirs' possession of their respective shares. The testator's legal
BANARES, SUSANA HITOSIS-BANARES RODRIGUEZ, JOSE HITOSIS, LOLITA HITOSIS- heirs did not appeal from the decree of probate trial from the order of partition trial distribution.
BANEGA, minors MILAGROS HITOSIS-BANEGA, ALICIA HITOSIS-BANEGA AND ELISA
HITOSIS-BANEGA, represented by their legal guardian and father ERNESTO BANEGA, 5. On February 20, 1952, Leon Hitosis trial the heirs of Florentino's deceased brothers
FELICITAS HITOSIS-PENAFLOR, GENOVEVA HITOSIS-ADRIATICO, MANUEL HITOSIS, trial sisters instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon against Pedro
PEDRO HITOSIS, LIBRATA HITOSIS-BALMES, JUANITA HITOSIS-GABITO VDA. DE GABAS, Gallanosa for the recovery of the said sixty-one parcels of land. They alleged that they, by
MAURA HITOSIS-GABITO VDA. DE GANOLA and LEONA HITOSIS-GABITO GAMBA, themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, had been in continuous possession of
respondents. those lands en concepto de dueño trial that Gallanosa entered those lands in 1951 trial asserted
ownership over the lands. They prayed that they be declared the owners of the lands trial that
Haile Frivaldo for petitioners. they be restored to the possession thereof. They also claimed damages (Civil Case No. 696).

Joaquin R Mitosis for private respondents. 6. Gallanosa moved to dismiss the above complaint for lack of cause of action trial on
the ground of bar by the prior judgment in the probate proceeding. Judge Anatolio C. Mañalac
dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata in his order of August 14, 1952 wherein he
AQUINO, J.: said:

In this special civil action of certiorari, filed on July 29, 1968, the petitioners seek to annul the It also appears that the plaintiffs and/or their predecessors-in-interest had intervened in the
orders of respondent Judge dated May 3 trial June 17, 1968, wherein he reconsidered his order testate proceedings in Civil Case No. 3171 of this Court for- the purpose of contesting the
of January 10, 1968, dismissing, on the ground of prescription, the complaint in Civil Case No. probate of the will of (the) late Florentino Hitosis; trial had their opposition prospered trial the will
2233 of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon. denied of probate, the proceedings would have been converted into one of intestacy (Art. 960
Civil Code) and the settlement of the estate of the said deceased would have been made in
The case involves the sixty-one parcels of land in Sorsogon left by Florentino Hitosis, with an accordance with the provisions of law governing legal or intestate succession ... , in which case
estimated value of P50,000, trial claims for damages exceeding one million pesos. The the said plaintiffs, as the nearest of kin or legal heirs of said Florentino Mitosis, would have
undisputed facts are as follows: succeeded to the ownership and possession of the 61 parcels of land in question forming part of
his estate (art. 1003, Civil Code).
1. Florentino Hitosis executed a will in the Bicol dialect on June 19, 1938 when he was
eighty years old. He died on May 26, 1939 at Irosin, Sorsogon. A childless widower, he as However, the derision of the Court was adverse to them, when it their opposition trial ordered the
survived by his brother, Leon Hitosis. His other brothers, named Juan, Tito (Juancito), Leoncio probate of his will. From this decision (Annex K) legalizing the said will, the oppositors did not file
(Aloncio) trial Apolonio and only sister, Teodora, were all dead. any appeal within the period fixed by law, despite the fact that they were duly notified thereof, so
that the said decision had become final trial it now constitutes a bar to any action that the
2. On June 24, 1939 a petition for the probate of his will was filed in the Court of First plaintiffs may institute for the purpose of a redetermination of their rights to inherit the properties
Instance of Sorsogon (Special Proceeding No. 3171). The notice of hearing was duly published. of the late Florentino Hitosis.
In that will, Florentino bequeathed his one-half share in the conjugal estate to his second wife,
Tecla Dollentas, and, should Tecla predecease him, as was the case, his one-half share would In other words, the said decision of this Court in Civil Case special ) No. 3171, in which the
be assigned to the spouses Pedro Gallanosa and Corazon Grecia, the reason being that Pedro, herein plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest had intervened as parties oppositors,
Tecla's son by her first marriage, grew up under the care of Florentino; he had treated Pedro as constitutes a final judicial determination of the issue that the said plaintiffs, as ordinary heirs,
have no legal rights to succeed to any of the properties of the late Florentino Hitosis; Our procedural law does not sanction an action for the "annulment" of a will. In order that a will
consequently, their present claim to the ownership trial possession of the 61 parcels of land in may take effect, it has to be probated, legalized or allowed in the proper testamentary
question is without any legal merit or basis. proceeding. The probate of the will is mandatory (Art. 838, Civil Code; sec. 1, Rule 75, formerly
sec. 1, Rule 76, Rules of Court; Guevara vs. Guevara, 74 Phil. 479; Guevara vs. Guevara, 98
7. The plaintiffs did not appeal from that order of dismissal which should have set the matter at Phil. 249).
rest. But the same plaintiffs or oppositors to the probate of the will, trial their heirs, with a
persistence befitting a more meritorious case, filed on September 21, 1967, or fifteen years after The testamentary proceeding is a special proceeding for the settlement of the testator's estate.
the dismissal of Civil Case No. 696 trial twenty-eight years after the probate of the will another A special proceeding is distinct trial different from an ordinary action (Secs. 1 trial 2, Rule 2 trial
action in the same court against the Gallanosa spouses trial Adolfo Fortajada for the sec. 1, Rule 72, Rules of Court).
"annulment" of the will of Florentino Hitosis trial and for the recovery of the same sixty-one
parcels of land. They prayed for the appointment of a receiver. We say that the defense of res judicata, as a ground for the dismissal of plaintiffs' 1967
complaint, is a two-pronged defense because (1) the 1939 trial 1943 decrees of probate trial
8. As basis of their complaint, they alleged that the Gallanosa spouses, through fraud trial deceit, distribution in Special Proceeding No. 3171 trial (2) the 1952 order of dismissal in Civil Case No.
caused the execution trial simulation of the document purporting to be the last will trial testament 696 of the lower court constitute bars by former judgment, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
of Florentino Hitosis. While in their 1952 complaint the game plaintiffs alleged that they were in provides:
possession of the lands in question, in their 1967 complaint they admitted that since 1939, or
from the death of Florentino Hitosis, the defendants (now the petitioners) have been in SEC. 49. Effect of judgments. — The effect of a judgment or final order rendered by a court or
possession of the disputed lands (Par. XIV of the complaint, p. 70, Rollo in Civil Case No. 555, judge of the Philippines, having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or order, may be as
Gubat Branch, which was transferred to Branch I in Sorsogon town where Special Proceeding follows:
No. 3171 trial Civil Case No. 696 were decided trial which was re-docketed as Civil Case No.
2233). (a) In case of a judgment or order against a specific thing, or in respect to the probate of a
will or the administration of the estate of a deceased person, or in respect to the personal,
9. As already stated, that 1967 complaint, upon motion of the defendants, now the petitioners, political, or legal condition or status of a particular person or his relationship to another, the
was dismissed by respondent Judge. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration judgment or order is conclusive upon the title to the thing the will or administration, or the
Respondent Judge. granted it trial set aside the order of dismissal. He denied defendants' condition, status or relationship of the person; however, the probate of a will or granting of letters
motion for the reconsideration of his order setting aside that dismissal order. of administration shall only be prima facie evidence of the death of the testator or intestate;

The petitioners or the defendants below contend in this certiorari case that the lower court has (b) In other cases the judgment or order is, with respect to the matter directly adjudged or
no jurisdiction to set aside the 1939 decree of probate trial the 1952 order of dismissal in Civil as to any other matter that could have been raised in relation thereto, conclusive between the
Case No. 696 trial that it acted with grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing private parties trial their successors in interest by title subsequent to the commencement of the action or
respondents' 1967 complaint. special proceeding, litigating of the same thing trial under the same title trial in the same
capacity;
The issue is whether, under the facts set forth above, the private respondents have a cause of
action the "annulment" of the will of Florentino Hitosis trial for the recovery of the sixty-one (c) In any other litigation between the same parties or their successors in interest, that
parcels of land adjudicated under that will to the petitioners. only is deemed to have been adjudged in a former judgment which appears upon its face to
have been so adjudged, or which was actually trial necessarily included therein or necessary
We hold that the lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion in reconsideration its order thereto.
of dismissal trial in ignoring the 1939 testamentary case trial the 1952 Civil Case No. 696 which
is the same as the instant 1967 case. The 1939 decree of probate is conclusive as to the due execution or formal validity of the will
(Sec. 625, Act 190, sec. 1, Rule 76, now sec. 1, Rule 75, Rules of Court; Last par. of art. 838,
A rudimentary knowledge of substantive law trial procedure is sufficient for an ordinary lawyer to Civil Code).
conclude upon a causal perusal of the 1967 complaint that it is baseless trial unwarranted.
That means that the testator was of sound trial disposing mind at the time when he executed the
What the plaintiffs seek is the "annulment" of a last will trial testament duly probated in 1939 by will and was not acting under duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence; that the will was signed
the lower court itself. The proceeding is coupled with an action to recover the lands adjudicated by him in the presence of the required number of witnesses, and that the will is genuine trial is
to the defendants by the same court in 1943 by virtue of the probated will, which action is a not a forgery. Accordingly, these facts cannot again be questioned in a subsequent proceeding,
resuscitation of The complaint of the same parties that the same court dismissed in 1952. not even in a criminal action for the forgery of the will. (3 Moran's Comments on the Rules of
Court, 1970 Edition, p. 395; Manahan vs. Manahan, 58 Phil. 448).
It is evident from the allegations of the complaint trial from defendants' motion to dismiss that
plaintiffs' 1967 action is barred by res judicata, a double-barrelled defense, trial by prescription, After the finality of the allowance of a will, the issue as to the voluntariness of its execution
acquisitive trial extinctive, or by what are known in the jus civile trial the jus gentium as usucapio, cannot be raised anymore (Santos vs. De Buenaventura, L-22797, September 22, 1966, 18
longi temporis possesio and praescriptio (See Ramos vs. Ramos, L-19872, December 3, 1974, SCRA 47).
61 SCRA 284).
In Austria vs. Ventenilla, 21 Phil. 180, a "petition for annulment of a will" was not entertained That ruling is a glaring error. Article 1410 cannot possibly apply to last wills trial testaments. The
after the decree of probate had become final. That case is summarized as follows: trial court trial plaintiffs' counsel relied upon the case of Dingle vs. Guillermo, 48 0. G. 4410,
allegedly decided by this Court, which cited the ruling in Tipton vs. Velasco, 6 Phil. 67, that mere
Wills; Probate; Alledged Fraudulent Will; Appeal.— V. died. His will was admitted to probate lapse of time cannot give efficacy to void contracts, a ruling elevated to the category of a codal
without objection. No appeal was taken from said order. It was admitted that due trial legal notice provision in article 1410. The Dingle case was decided by the Court of Appeals. Even the trial
had been given to all parties. Fifteen months after the date of said order, a motion was court did not take pains to verify the misrepresentation of plaintiffs' counsel that the Dingle case
presented in the lower court to have said will declared null and void, for the reason that fraud was decided by this Court. An elementary knowledge of civil law could have alerted the trial
had been practised upon the deceased in the making of his will. court to the egregious error of plaintiffs' counsel in arguing that article 1410 applies to wills.

Held: That under section 625 of Act No. 190, the only time given parties who are displeased with WHEREFORE, the lower court's orders of May 3 trial June 17, 1968 are reversed trial set aside
the order admitting to probate a will, for an appeal is the time given for appeals in ordinary trial its order of dismissal dated January 10, 1968 is affirmed. Costs against the private
actions; but without deciding whether or not an order admitting a will to probate will be opened respondents.
for fraud, after the time allowed for an appeal has expired, when no appeal is taken from an
order probating a will, the heirs can not, in subsequent litigation in the same proceedings, raise SO ORDERED.
questions relating to its due execution. The probate of a will is conclusive as to its due execution
trial as to the testamentary capacity of The testator. (See Austria vs. Heirs of Ventenilla. 99 Phil.
1069).

On the other hand, the 1943 decree of adjudication rendered by the trial court in the testate
proceeding for the settlement of the estate of Florentino Hitosis, having been rendered in a
proceeding in rem, is under the abovequoted section 49(a), binding upon the whole world
(Manalo vs. Paredes, 47 Phil. 938; In re Estate of Johnson, 39 Phil. 156; De la Cerna vs. Potot,
120 Phil. 1361, 1364; McMaster vs. Hentry Reissmann & Co., 68 Phil. 142).

It is not only the 1939 probate proceeding that can be interposed as res judicata with respect to
private respondents' complaint, The 1952 order of dismissal rendered by Judge Mañalac in Civil
Case No. 696, a judgment in personam was an adjudication on the merits (Sec. 4, Rule 30, old
Rules of Court). It constitutes a bar by former judgment under the aforequoted section 49(b)
(Anticamara vs. Ong, L-29689. April 14, 1978).

The plaintiffs or private respondents did not even bother to ask for the annulment of the
testamentary proceeding trial the proceeding in Civil Case No. 696. Obviously, they realized that
the final adjudications in those cases have the binding force of res judicata and that there is no
ground, nor is it timely, to ask for the nullification of the final orders trial judgments in those two
cases.

It is a fundamental concept in the organization of every jural system, a principle of public policy,
that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments of courts should become final at some definite
date fixed by law. Interest rei publicae ut finis sit litum. "The very object for which the courts were
constituted was to put an end to controversies." (Dy Cay vs. Crossfield and O'Brien, 38 Phil.
521: Peñalosa vs. Tuason, 22 Phil, 303; De la Cerna vs. Potot, supra).

After the period for seeking relief from a final order or judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of
Court has expired, a final judgment or order can be set aside only on the grounds of (a) lack of
jurisdiction or lack of due process of law or (b) that the judgment was obtained by means of
extrinsic or collateral fraud. In the latter case, the period for annulling the judgment is four years
from the discovery of the fraud (2 Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Edition, pp.
245-246; Mauricio vs. Villanueva, 106 Phil. 1159).

To hurdle over the obstacle of prescription, the trial court, naively adopting the theory of
plaintiffs' counsel, held that the action for the recovery of the lands had not prescribed because
the rule in article 1410 of the Civil Code, that "the action or defense for the declaration of the
inexistence of a contract does not prescribe", applies to wills.