Pedro Gallanosa vs Hon. Ubaldo Y.

Arcangel, Judge of Court of First Instance

G.R. No. L-7179. June 30, 1955


Doctrine:

An action instituted in 1967 for the annulment of a last will and testament duly probated way back in 1939 will not prosper. The Rules of
Court does not sanction an action for “annulment” of a will. After the finality of the allowance of a will, the issue as to the voluntariness of
its execution cannot be raised anymore. The Civil Law rule that an action for declaration of inexistence of a contract does not prescribe
cannot be applied to last wills and testaments.

Recit-Ready Summary:
The last will and testament of Florentino Hitosis was probated and his surviving brother opposed. Court of First Instance admitted the will
to probate. The surviving brother then instituted an action for the recovery of the possession of the properties indicated in the last will and
testament but was dismissed by the Court. After 28 years and 15 years from the probate of the will and the dismissal of the Civil case,
respectively, another action was filed by the surviving brother for the annulment of the will of Florentino. Court granted annulment and set
aside order of dismissal from 15 years ago. SC held that Court acted with grave abuse of discretion as the 2 cases involving the probate and
Civil case had already been barred by res judicata and prescription.

FACTS:
The case involves the sixty-one parcels of land in Sorsogon left by Florentino Hitosis, with an estimated value of P50,000, and claims for
damages exceeding one million pesos. Hitosis executed a will in the Bicol dialect on June 19, 1938 when he was eighty years old. He
bequatehed his one-half share in the conjugal estate to his second wife and his one-half share would be assigned to the spouses Pedro
Gallanosa and Corazon, and the rest of his separate properties to his protégé Adolfo, a minor. He died a childless widower, but he as
survived by his brother, Leon Hitosis. His other brothers, and only sister were all dead.

A petition for the probate of his will was filed in the Court of First Instance and Opposition was registered by his surviving brother and his
nephews and nieces without presenting any evidence in support of their opposition. Court admitted the will to probate.

The brother of the testator instituted an action for the recovery of the sixty one parcels of land alleging that they had been in continuous
possession of such. This was dismissed by the Court.

After 28 years from the probate and 15 years from the dismissal, another action was filed for the annulment of the will of Florentino. This
was dismissed again. But, upon a motion for reconsideration, Respondent judge granted it and set aside the dismissal order from15 years
ago.

Petitioners filed the present case of certiorari

ISSUES:
1. Whether the respondents have a cause of action for the annulment of the will and for the recovery of the sixty one parcels of land.

RULING:
SC held that the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion in reconsideration its order of dismissal and in ignoring the 1939
testamentary case and the 1952 Civil case. Plaintiff’s action is barred by res judicata and by prescription.

SC held that our procedural law does not sanction an action for the “annulment” of a will. In order that a will may take effect, it has to be
probated, legalized or allowed in the proper testamentary proceeding. The probate of the will is mandatory. The 1939 decree of probate is
conclusive as to the due execution or formal validity of the will. After the finality of the allowance of a will, the issue as to the voluntariness
of its execution cannot be raised anymore.

SC also held that the Civil Case decision has also been barred by res judicata as this was an adjudication on the merits.

SC also held that Article 1410 stating that the action or defense of the declaration of the existence of a contract does not prescribe, does
not apply to last wills and testaments.