G.R. No. L-32328 September 30, 1977 FERNANDEZ, J.

ALDINA MALOTO CASIANO ET AL. vs. PANFILO MALOTO AND FELINO MALOTO

FACTS:

In October 1963, Adriana Maloto died in Iloilo City, her place of residence. A month after, the niece
and 3 nephews of Adriana Maloto commenced an intestate proceeding in the CFI of Iloilo and
divided the estate in the proportion of 1/4 share for each. The CFI judge ruled in their favor.

In April 1967, a document purporting to be the last will and testament of Adriana was delivered to
the CFI of Iloilo. Aldina et al. were all named as heirs but Aldina and Constancio have bigger,
different and more valuable shares in the will than in the extrajudicial partition. It also included
dispositions in favor of Asilo de Molo, the Roman Catholic Church of Molo, and Purificacion Miraflor.

Along with the other devisees and legatees, Aldina and Constancio filed a motion for the allowance
of the will of Adriana which was denied as it was filed out of time. A petition for certiorari and
mandamus was filed with the SC but it was denied on the ground of improper remedy. Then, they
initiated in the CFI of Iloilo for the probate of the alleged last will and testament. It was dismissed
on the ground that said will had been destroyed and revoked by Adriana. The court also ruled that
the probate is barred by an order in the intestate estate proceeding. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

WON the probate court erred in ruling that the proceeding is barred by its prior judgment

HELD:

Yes.

The probate court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition for the probate of the alleged will of
Adriana. Indeed, the motion to reopen the proceedings was filed out of time. Moreover, it is not
proper to make a finding in an intestate proceeding that the discovered will has been revoked. In
fact, the probate court stated in its order that Movants should have filed a separate action for the
probate of the will. Even this Court, in dismissing the petition for certiorari, said that the more
appropriate remedy is a separate proceeding for the probate of the alleged will.

WHEREFORE, the order dated April 13, 1970 dismissing the petition for the probate of the alleged
will of Adriana Maloto is hereby set aside and the lower court is directed to proceed with the
hearing of the petition in Special Proceeding No. 2176 on the merits, with costs against the
respondents.