CASE DIGEST: Racca Et. Al v. Echague; G.R. No. 237133; 20 January 2021

 Racca Et. Al v. Echague

G.R. No. 237133

20 January 2021

Gesmundo, J.

 

Doctrine:

Personal notice is mandatory to the heirs whose places of residences are known.

 

Facts:

The Respondent filed a petition for the allowance of the will of the late Amparo and for the issuance of letters testamentary in her favor.  She averred that the testator executed a notarial will and bequeathed an undivided portion of parcel of land in favor of her grandnephew. On the other hand, the Respondent named the petitioners in this case as the testator’s known heirs.

The trial court found the petition sufficient in form and substance and subsequently order to set the case for hearing. Correspondingly, the court issued Notice of Hearing. However, the petitioners failed to appear. Thus, they were declared in default.

Consequently, the petitioners moved to lift the order of general default due excusable negligence. However, the court denied their motion. It held that the jurisdictional requirement of publication and posting of notices had been substantially complied with.

Thus, they moved for MR which was also denied by the trial court. Hence, the present petition.

 

Issue:

Whether the publication of the notice of hearing is a sufficient notice to the Petitioners.

 

Ruling:

No. The publication of the notice of hearing is not a sufficient notice to the Petitioners.

 

In this case, the Petitioners were not properly notified in accordance with Sec. 4, Rule 76 of the Revised Rules of Court.

It must be noted however, that in cases of probate proceedings the trial court cannot issue a general order of default. Considering that Rule 9 Section 3 provides that an order of default avails only in litigious proceedings.

Furthermore, notice to the designated and known heirs, devisees and legatees under Section 4, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court is mandatory. Likewise, publication of notice of hearing is not sufficient when the places of residence of the heirs, legatees and devisees are known. The notice requirement in the allowance or disallowance of a will is found in Secs. 3 and 4, Rule 76 of the 1997 Rules of Court.

Secs. 3 and 4 of Rule 76 of the Rules of Court prescribes two (2) modes of notification of the hearing: (1) by publication in a newspaper of general circulation or the Official Gazette, and (2) by personal notice to the designated or known heirs, legatees and devisees. Thus, personal notice under Sec. 4 shall be served to the designated or known heirs, legatees and devisees, and the executor or co-executor, at their residence, if such are known.

Hence, the publication of the notice of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation did not sufficiently notify the petitioners of the scheduled hearing.

Finally, Section 4 of Rule 76 is clear. The notice of the time and place of the hearing for the allowance of a will shall be forwarded to the designated or other known heirs, legatees, and devisees residing in the Philippines at their places of residence, if such places of residence be known. It is indubitable that the residences of the petitioners – legatees and devisees were known to the probate court. The names and addresses of the legatees and devisees of the testator are indicated in the petition for the allowance of the will. But despite such knowledge, the probate court did not cause copies of the notice to be sent to petitioners.

Therefore, the requirement of the law for the allowance of the will was not satisfied by mere publication of the notice of hearing for three (3) weeks in a newspaper or general circulation in the province.