Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Alaban vs. Court of Appeals 470 SCRA 697 G.R. No. 156021 September 23 2005
Alaban vs. Court of Appeals 470 SCRA 697 G.R. No. 156021 September 23 2005
Republic of the Philippines Same; Same; Same; Same; An action to annul a final judgment on the
SUPREME COURT ground of fraud lies only if the fraud is extrinsic or collateral in character.—
An action to annul a final judgment on the ground of fraud lies only if the fraud is
SECOND DIVISION extrinsic or collateral in character. Fraud is regarded as extrinsic where it prevents
a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or where
it operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in
G.R. No. 156021 September 23, 2005
which it is procured. The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is
that the fraudulent scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented a party from having
CYNTHIA C. ALABAN, FRANCIS COLLADO, JOSE P. COLLADO, JUDITH his day in court.
PROVIDO, CLARITA PROVIDO, ALFREDO PROVIDO, MANUEL PROVIDO,
JR., LORNA DINA E. PROVIDO, SEVERO ARENGA, JR., SERGIO ARENGA,
Same; Probate Proceedings; A proceeding for the probate of a will is one in
EDUARDO ARENGA, CAROL ARENGA, RUTH BABASA, NORMA HIJASTRO,
rem, such that with the corresponding publication of the petition the court’s
DOLORES M. FLORES, ANTONIO MARIN, JR., JOSE MARIN, SR., and
jurisdiction extends to all persons interested in said will or in the settlement
MATHILDE MARIN, Petitioners,
of the estate of the decedent.—Under the Rules of Court, any executor, devisee,
vs.
or legatee named in a will, or any other person interested in the estate may, at any
COURT OF APPEALS and FRANCISCO H. PROVIDO, Respondent.
time after the death of the testator, petition the court having jurisdiction to have the
will allowed. Notice of the time and place for proving the will must be published for
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Judgments; Motions; A motion for new trial three (3) consecutive weeks, in a newspaper of general circulation in the province,
or reconsideration and a petition for relief from judgment are remedies as well as furnished to the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and
available only to parties in the proceedings where the assailed judgment is devisees of the testator. Thus, it has been held that a proceeding for the probate of
rendered.—A motion for new trial or reconsideration and a petition for relief from a will is one in rem, such that with the corresponding publication of the petition the
judgment are remedies available only to parties in the proceedings where the court’s jurisdiction extends to all persons interested in said will or in the settlement
assailed judgment is rendered. In fact, it has been held that a person who was of the estate of the decedent.
never a party to the case, or even summoned to appear therein, cannot avail of a
petition for relief from judgment.
Same; Same; It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole
world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and
Same; Same; Same; Annulment of Judgment; An action for annulment of decide it.—Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its
judgment is a remedy in law independent of the case where the judgment object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort
sought to be annulled was rendered; It is resorted to in cases where the against the right sought to be established. It is the publication of such notice that
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief from judgment or brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction
other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the to hear and decide it. Thus, even though petitioners were not mentioned in the
petitioner and is based on only two grounds: extrinsic fraud and lack of petition for probate, they eventually became parties thereto as a consequence of
jurisdiction or denial of due process. — An action for annulment of judgment is the publication of the notice of hearing.
a remedy in law independent of the case where the judgment sought to be
annulled was rendered. The purpose of such action is to have the final and
Same; Same; Same; Petitioners, as nephews and nieces of the decedent, are
executory judgment set aside so that there will be a renewal of litigation. It is
neither compulsory nor testate heirs who are entitled to be notified of the
resorted to in cases where the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for
probate proceedings under the Rules.—According to the Rules, notice is
relief from judgment, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through
required to be personally given to known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the
no fault of the petitioner, and is based on only two grounds: extrinsic fraud, and
testator. A perusal of the will shows that respondent was instituted as the sole heir
lack of jurisdiction or denial of due process. A person need not be a party to the
of the decedent. Petitioners, as nephews and nieces of the decedent, are neither
judgment sought to be annulled, and it is only essential that he can prove his
compulsory nor testate heirs who are entitled to be notified of the probate
allegation that the judgment was obtained by the use of fraud and collusion and he
proceedings under the Rules. Respondent had no legal obligation to mention
would be adversely affected thereby.
petitioners in the petition for probate, or to personally notify them of the same.
On 11 January 2002, the RTC issued an Order10 denying petitioners’ motion for For his part, respondent claims that petitioners were in a position to avail of the
being unmeritorious. Resolving the issue of jurisdiction, the RTC held that remedies provided in Rules 37 and 38, as they in fact did when they filed a motion
petitioners were deemed notified of the hearing by publication and that the for new trial.22 Moreover, they could have resorted to a petition for relief from
deficiency in the payment of docket fees is not a ground for the outright dismissal judgment since they learned of the RTC’s judgment only three and a half months
of the petition. It merely required respondent to pay the deficiency. Moreover, the after its promulgation.23 Respondent likewise maintains that no extrinsic fraud
exists to warrant the annulment of the RTC’s Decision, since there was no showing
Rule permits the filing of a motion for reconsideration on the grounds of excessive As parties to the probate proceedings, petitioners could have validly availed of the
award of damages, insufficiency of evidence to justify the decision or final order, or remedies of motion for new trial or reconsideration and petition for relief from
that the decision or final order is contrary to law. 32 Both motions should be filed judgment. In fact, petitioners filed a motion to reopen, which is essentially a motion
within the period for taking an appeal, or fifteen (15) days from notice of the for new trial, with petitioners praying for the reopening of the case and the setting
judgment or final order. of further proceedings. However, the motion was denied for having been filed out
of time, long after the Decision became final and executory.
To sustain their allegation of extrinsic fraud, petitioners assert that as a result of estate on the theory that the decedent died intestate. The petition was dismissed
respondent’s deliberate omission or concealment of their names, ages and on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and it is this order of dismissal which is the
residences as the other heirs of the decedent in his petition for allowance of the subject of review in CA-G.R. No. 74924. Clearly, therefore, there is forum-
will, they were not notified of the proceedings, and thus they were denied their day shopping.
in court. In addition, they claim that respondent’s offer of a false compromise even
before the filing of the petition prevented them from appearing and opposing the Moreover, petitioners failed to inform the Court of the said pending case in their
petition for probate. certification against forum- shopping. Neither have they done so at any time
thereafter. The Court notes that even in the petition for annulment of judgment,
The Court is not convinced. petitioners failed to inform the CA of the pendency of their appeal in CA-G.R. No.
74924, even though the notice of appeal was filed way before the petition for
annulment of judgment was instituted.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice