V.Doroteo vs. CA, G.R. No. 108581, December 8, 1999

V.Doroteo vs. CA, 

G.R. No. 108581, December 8, 1999


FACTS The case commenced following the death of Alejandro Dorotheo, whose estate remained unsettled after his spouse, Aniceta Reyes, died in 1969. In 1977, Lourdes L. Dorotheo, alleging to have cared for Alejandro before his death, filed a special proceeding for the probate of Alejandro’s last will and testament. The will was admitted to probate in 1981 without an appeal from Alejandro’s legitimate children, Nilda D. Quintana, Vicente Dorotheo, and Jose Dorotheo (private respondents). However, in 1983, they moved to declare the will intrinsically void, which the trial court granted in 1986. Lourdes'[petitioner’s] subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed for failure to submit her brief on time. This dismissal was final and executory by 1989. Despite an executory order stating the intrinsic voidness of the will and the distribution of the estate according to intestate laws, Lourdes opposed the motions filed by private respondents to surrender the Transfer Certificates of Titles (TCTs) she held. This led to further legal battles, culminating in the trial court’s controversial orders in 1990 and 1991, attempting to set aside the final and executory order on the will’s intrinsic invalidity. The Court of Appeals nullified these orders, prompting Lourdes to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court. May a last will and testament admitted to probate but declared intrinsically void in an order that has become final and executory still be given effect? 


RULING No because it has become immutable. Ja final and executory decision or order is immutable and cannot be altered, regardless of its perceived erroneous nature. 

Here, the orders setting aside the final and executory order on the intrinsic invalidity of Alejandro’s will were issued in error, infringing on the principle of finality of judgments. The Court further clarified that probate proceedings deal with the extrinsic validity of the will, and questions about its intrinsic validity could still be raised even after authentication. Thus, despite the extrinsic validity of Alejandro’s will, its intrinsic provisions were correctly adjudged void, necessitating the application of intestate succession laws. The Supreme Court denied Lourdes’ petition, affirming the appellate court’s decision.







Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147