12. CYNTHIA C. ALABAN, et al. Petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and FRANCISCO H.

PROVIDO,
Respondents.
[G.R. N. 1!"#21, Se$te%&e' 2(, 2##!, TINGA, J.)*
FACTS)
1. respondent Francisco Provido filed a petition for the probate of the Last Will and Testament of the late
Soledad Provido Elevencionado
a. ALLEGATIO! he "as the heir of the decedent and the e#ec$tor of her "ill.
b. %T&'s %(LIG! allo"ed the probate of the "ill and directed the iss$ance of letters testamentar)
to respondent
*. Petitioners after + months filed a motion for the reopenin, of the probate proceedin,s
a. &LAI-s!
1. the) are the intestate heirs of the decedent.
*. %T& did not ac/$ire 0$risdiction over the petition d$e to non1pa)ment of the correct
doc2et fees3 defective p$blication3 and lac2 of notice to the other heirs.
4. "ill co$ld not have been probated beca$se!
a. the si,nat$re of the decedent "as for,ed5
b. the "ill "as not e#ec$ted in accordance "ith la"3 that is3 the "itnesses failed to
si,n belo" the attestation cla$se5
c. the decedent lac2ed testamentar) capacit) to e#ec$te and p$blish a "ill5
d. the "ill "as e#ec$ted b) force and $nder d$ress and improper press$re5
e. the decedent had no intention to ma2e a "ill at the time of affi#in, of her
si,nat$re5 and
f. she did not 2no" the properties to be disposed of3 havin, incl$ded in the "ill
properties "hich no lon,er belon,ed to her.
b. %T&'s %$lin,! denied motion
1. petitioners "ere deemed notified of the hearin, b) p$blication and that the deficienc)
in the pa)ment of doc2et fees is not a ,ro$nd for the o$tri,ht dismissal of the petition.
*. %T&'s Decision "as alread) final and e#ec$tor) even before petitioners' filin, of the
motion to reopen
4. Petitioners filed a petition to ann$le %T&'s decision
a. &LAI-! there "as a compromise a,reement bet"een petitioners and respondents and the)
learnt the probate proceedin, onl) in 6$l) *771
b. &A's %(LIG! petition dismissed
1. no sho"in, that petitioners failed to avail of or resort to the ordinar) remedies of ne"
trial3 appeal3 petition for relief from 0$d,ment3 or other appropriate remedies thro$,h no
fa$lt of their o"n
ISSUE) W8 the allo"ance of the "ill to probate sho$ld be ann$lled for fail$re to mention the petitioners as
parties
HELD) N
1. Probate of a "ill is considered action in rem
a. (nder the %$les of &o$rt3 an) e#ec$tor3 devisee3 or le,atee named in a "ill3 or an) other person
interested in the estate ma)3 at an) time after the death of the testator3 petition the co$rt havin,
0$risdiction to have the "ill allo"ed.
94:;
otice of the time and place for provin, the "ill m$st be
p$blished for three <4. consec$tive "ee2s3 in a ne"spaper of ,eneral circ$lation in the province3
94=;
as "ell as f$rnished to the desi,nated or other 2no"n heirs3 le,atees3 and devisees of the
testator
b. Petitioners became parties d$e to the p$blication of the notice of hearin,
*. The filin, of motion to reopen is similar to a motion for ne" trial
a. The r$lin, became final and e#ec$tor beca$se the motion "as filed o$t of time
b. Given that the) 2ne" of the decision + months after the) co$ld have filed a petition for relief from
0$d,ment after the denial of their motion to reopen.
4. petition for ann$lment of 0$d,ment m$st still fail for fail$re to compl) "ith the s$bstantive re/$isites3
a. An action for ann$lment of 0$d,ment is a remed) in la" independent of the case "here the
0$d,ment so$,ht to be ann$lled "as rendered
b. P(%POSE! to have the final and e#ec$tor) 0$d,ment set aside so that there "ill be a rene"al of
liti,ation.
c. * Gro$nds! e#trinsic fra$d3 and lac2 of 0$risdiction or denial of d$e process
d. An action to ann$l a final 0$d,ment on the ,ro$nd of fra$d lies onl) if the fra$d is e#trinsic or
collateral in character
i. E#trinsic if it prevents a part) from havin, a trial or from presentin, his entire case to the
co$rt3 or "here it operates $pon matters pertainin, not to the 0$d,ment itself b$t to the
manner in "hich it is proc$red.
+. notice is re/$ired to be personall) ,iven to 2no"n heirs3 le,atees3 and devisees of the testator
a. the "ill states that the respondent "as instit$ted as the sole heir of the decedent th$s he has no
le,al obli,ation to mention petitioners in the petition for probate or personall) notif) them