View full case

LOURDES L. DOROTHEO v. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute over the last will and testament of Alejandro Dorotheo. Petitioner filed a special proceeding for the probate of the will after Alejandro's death. The court admitted the will to probate in 1981, without any appeals filed. In 1983, the legitimate children of Alejandro, who are the private respondents, filed a motion to declare the will void. The trial court granted their motion, declaring the will void and recognizing private respondents as the only heirs of Alejandro and his deceased wife.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, but her appeal was dismissed due to her failure to file an appellant's brief, making the dismissal final and executory. Subsequently, a writ of execution was issued by the trial court. Private respondents sought for petitioner to surrender the Transfer Certificates of Titles (TCT) for Alejandro's properties, which were refused. Consequently, they filed a motion for cancellation of the titles and issuance of new titles in their names.

The trial court then set aside the final and executory order admitting the will to probate. When private respondents' motion for reconsideration was denied, they filed a petition to the Court of Appeals which nullified the orders setting aside the probate and denying reconsideration.

Petitioner filed a petition for review, arguing that the orders of the trial court and Court of Appeals were null and void. Additionally, she filed a motion to reinstate her as executrix of the estate.

ISSUES:

  1. 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?

  2. Was the order dated January 30, 1986 final and executory, or merely interlocutory?

  3. Can the petitioner be reinstated as the executrix of the estate of the late Alejandro Dorotheo?

RULING:

  1. No, a last will and testament that has been admitted to probate but declared intrinsically void in an order that has become final and executory cannot be given effect. The court emphasized that once an order has attained finality, it can no longer be disturbed, regardless of any claimed errors.

  2. No, the order dated January 30, 1986, was not merely interlocutory but final and executory. Since private respondents did not appeal the order, it became final and binding, making the issues relating to the intrinsic validity of the will res judicata for those involved.

  3. The petitioner’s motion for appointment as administratrix is moot as she was not legally married to Alejandro Dorotheo and thus is not an heir.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Finality of Judgments: Once a judgment or order has become final and executory, it can no longer be disturbed or reopened, no matter how erroneous it may be.

  • Res Judicata: The principle that a final judgment on the merits by a court having jurisdiction is conclusive between the parties and their privies in any subsequent litigation involving the same cause of action.

  • Hierarchy of Courts: Lower courts cannot reverse or set aside the decisions or orders of superior courts.

  • Extrinsic and Intrinsic Validity of Wills: Probate primarily addresses the extrinsic validity of the will (formalities of execution, testamentary capacity, etc.), while intrinsic validity relates to the lawful provisions of the will, which can still be questioned even after probate.

  • Preclusion Doctrine: Matters already settled in a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be re-litigated in another proceeding.

  • Preference for Testacy Over Intestacy: Testate distribution of an estate is preferred, but only if the will is both extrinsically and intrinsically valid.

  • Forum Shopping: Seeking a different forum to resolve the same issues that have already been decided by another court constitutes forum shopping.