Facts
Susana Abay de Arroyo filed a petition (Special Proceedings No. 3883) for the probate of the will of her deceased cousin, Candelaria Benguan. The opponents moved to dismiss, arguing that a prior petition for the probate of the same will (Special Proceedings No. 3628), filed by Felix Abay (Susana’s brother), had been dismissed and therefore constituted a bar (res judicata) to the current proceeding. The prior case (No. 3628) was dismissed because the former petitioner (Felix Abay) and his counsel failed to appear at the hearing, though the order of dismissal did not state that it was “with prejudice”. The Court of First Instance dismissed Susana Abay de Arroyo’s petition (No. 3883).
Issues
- Whether the dismissal of a prior petition for the probate of a will, based solely on the failure of the original petitioner and his counsel to appear at the hearing, constitutes an adjudication on the merits (res judicata) that bars a subsequent petition for the probate of the same will.
- Whether the rules governing dismissal of actions in civil cases (specifically Sections 3 and 4, Rule 30, and Section 2, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court) apply strictly to proceedings for the probate of wills.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled: “The order of dismissal appealed from is set aside and the petition for probate of a will filed in special proceedings No. 3883 remanded to the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental for further proceedings as provided for in the Rules of Court, without special pronouncement as to costs”.
Essential Elements of Jurisprudence
The Court established the following controlling doctrine and legal principles concerning the application of res judicata in probate proceedings:
Controlling Doctrine: The dismissal of a petition for probate due to the non-appearance or inaction of the petitioner is generally not an adjudication on the merits and cannot prejudice the right of other persons interested in the transmission of property rights under the same will.
Legal Principles Established:
- Fault is Not Imputable: The fault or failure of one person (the original petitioner) to appear in a probate proceeding cannot be imputed to other parties who are also interested in the will’s probate.
- Inapplicability of Civil Procedure Rules: Provisions of the Rules of Court regarding dismissal of civil actions for lack of interest or inaction (such as Sections 3 and 4, Rule 30, and Section 2, Rule 73) cannot be made to strictly apply to proceedings for the probate of wills.
- State Policy on Probate: It is the policy of the State to have last wills and testaments submitted to Court for their probate or legalization. This policy is so strong that the law provides punishment for persons who fail or neglect to deliver or present wills to the court for probate (referencing Sections 2 to 5, Rule 76).
- Res Judicata Exception: Because the failure to appear does not constitute an adjudication on the merits in this context, the dismissal does not create a bar (res judicata) to a subsequent petition filed by another interested party.
Sample Q&A
Question: Testator T dies, and his heir A files a petition for the probate of T’s will. The petition is dismissed by the court because A and his counsel fail to appear at the initial hearing. The dismissal order does not state that it is “with prejudice.” Subsequently, another heir, B, files a new petition to probate the same will. If the opponents argue that B’s petition is barred by the dismissal of A’s petition, citing the rules on dismissal of actions (analogous to Sections 3 and 4, Rule 30), should the court grant the motion to dismiss, and why?
Answer: No, the court should not grant the motion to dismiss. While the general rule for civil actions is that a dismissal for lack of interest or inaction may bar a subsequent suit (analogous to Sections 3 and 4, Rule 30), this rule does not strictly apply to proceedings for the probate of a will. Probate is a matter of State policy, requiring last wills to be submitted for legalization (as evidenced by the mandatory provisions of Sections 2 to 5, Rule 76, penalizing failure to present a will). The fault of A (failing to appear) is personal to him and cannot prejudice the rights of B, who is also an interested party in the transmission of property rights under the will. Therefore, the dismissal of A’s petition is not considered an adjudication on the merits, and it does not constitute res judicata against B’s subsequent petition.
ProbateLaw #LawOnSuccession #ResJudicata #SpecialProceedings #EstateOfBenguan #AbayDeArroyovAbay #RemedialLawPH #ValidityOfWills #RulesOfCourt #CivilProcedurePH #ProbateProceedingsCivilLawPH #PhilippineBar #SupremeCourtPH #LawStudentPH #BarReview #LegalEducation #FutureLawyerPH #PhilippineLawyers #LawSchoolPhilippines #PhilippineJurisprudenceCaseDigest #LegalUpdates #DailyLegal #LawyerLife #StudyGramPH #KnowledgeSharing #LegalMind #LawLife #LearnLaw #ProfessionalGrowth
Leave a Reply