Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-23915 September 28, 1970 NTEST!TE EST!

TE O" T#E L!TE EM L O T. LOPE$. S!TURN N! M. %&!. &E LOPE$, administratrix-appellee, vs. &!#L ! LOPE$ '() RO* LOPE$, m+(or,, repre,e(te) b- t.e+r mot.er '() ('t/r'0 1/'r)+'( LOL T! 2. 2!C#!R, movants-appellants. Hilado, Coruna and Hilado for administratrix and appellee. Rodolfo J. Herman for movants and appellants. M!3!L NT!L, J.: his appeal is directed a!ainst the order dated "ctober #, $%#& of the Court of 'irst (nstance of Ne!ros "ccidental den)in! appellants* motion to reopen the intestate proceedin! of the late Emilio +ope,. he facts are not disputed. "n "ctober $-, $%#. /aturnina M. 0da. de +ope,, 1udicial administratrix of the estate of the deceased 2/p. Proc No. -3&45, filed 6ith the lo6er court a pro1ect of partition ad1udicatin! the 6hole to herself and her le!itimate children 6ith the deceased. (n an order dated March -4, $%#& the lo6er court approved the pro1ect of partition and declared the intestate proceedin! 7terminated and closed for all le!al purposes.7 /eventeen da)s thereafter, or on April $#, $%#&, the minors 8ahlia and Ro), both surnamed +ope,, 1 represented b) their mother, +olita B. Bachar, filed a motion to reopen the proceedin!, to!ether 6ith a petition claimin! that the) 6ere ille!itimate children of, the deceased Emilio +ope,, born out of his extra-marital relations 6ith +olita B. Bachar, and as9in! that their ri!hts as such be reco!ni,ed and their shares in the estate !iven to them. he motion 6as opposed b) the 1udicial administratrix on the !round that the proceedin! had alread) been ordered terminated and closed and the estate 6as alread) in the hands of the distributees: and that the reopenin! of the intestate proceedin! 6as not the proper remed), 6hich should be an independent action a!ainst the individual distributees.. "n "ctober #, $%#& the trial court issued the follo6in! order; a9in! into consideration the petition of 8ahlia +ope, and Ro) +ope, represented b) their mother and natural !uardian +olita B. Bachar, dated April $-, $%#& and the opposition to the said motion to re-open filed b) attorne)s for /aturnina 0da. de

+ope, dated Ma) #, $%#&, the Court finds that the said petition to reopen is not in order. he said proceedin! 6as alread) ordered closed and that the propert) 6as divided to their respective heirs. (n the opinion of the Court, under the la6, reopenin! is not the proper remed) 2 omias, et al. vs. omias, et al., <.R. No. +--44&, Ma) -4, $%=$5. (n vie6 thereof, the said petition to reopen is hereb) denied for lac9 of merit. he movants as9ed for reconsideration, 6hich 6as denied, and thereupon appealed directl) to this Court. he issues posed before us for resolution are; 2$5 6hether or not the motion to reopen the estate proceedin! 6as filed too late: and 2.5 6hether or not such motion 6as the proper remed). "n the first issue appellee*s opposition is that the order declarin! the intestate proceedin! of the late Emilio +ope, terminated and closed had the effect of finalit), and thereafter the court had no more 1urisdiction to reopen the same: and that since the estate had been distributed the title thereto had become vested in the distributees. "f vital importance is the fact that appellants* motion to reopen, as 6ell as the petition attached thereto, is based on their claim that the) are ille!itimate children of the deceased. "n the face of such claim the) are le!al heirs of the deceased and hence entitled to share in his estate. >avin! been omitted in the partition presented b) the 1udicial administratrix ? and approved b) the Court, the) 6ere not bound thereb). he follo6in! statement of this Court in Vda. de Marbella vs. Kilayko, et al., $4& Phil. &$, citin! Lajom vs. Viola, 3- Phil. =#-, expresses the !eneral !overnin! principle; A 1udicial partition in probate proceedin!s 2and the same thin! can be said of partition in intestate proceedin!s5 does not bind the heirs 6ho 6ere not parties thereto. No partition, 1udicial or extra1udicial, could add one iota or particle to the interest 6hich the petitioner had durin! the 1oint possession. Partition is of the nature of a conve)ance of o6nership and certainl) none of the co-o6ners ma) conve) to the others more than his o6n true ri!ht. A 1udicial partition in probate proceedin!s is not final and conclusive, and not bein! of such definitive character to stop all means of redress for a co-heir 6ho has been deprived of his la6ful share, such co-heir ma) still, 6ithin the prescriptive period, brin! an action for reivindication in the province 6here an) of the real propert) of the deceased ma) be situated.

he motion to reopen 6as not too late. he court*s order declarin! the intestate proceedin! closed did not become final immediatel) upon its issuance. (t 6as no different from 1ud!ments or orders in ordinar) actions. hus, /ection . of Rule 3. provides that 7in the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinar) actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in /pecial Proceedin!s.7 And 1ud!ments or orders in ordinar) actions become final after thirt) 2-45 da)s from notice to the part) concerned. (n this case appellants* motion to reopen 6as led onl) seventeen 2$35 da)s from the date of the order of closure. he remed) 6as therefore invo9ed on time. he next issue ? as to 6hether the remed) pursued 6as proper, or 6hether it should have been an independent action a!ainst the individual distributees to annul the partition and recover appellants* shares in the estate ? is not a novel one. (n Arro)o vs. <erona, =& Phil. %4%, this Court said; a9in! up the @uestion of 1urisdiction of the court to entertain the appellants* motion 2to annul the deed of partition and the order approvin! it5 filed on Aul) %, $%.%, it must be remembered that in Benedicto vs. Aavellana 2$4 Phil. $%35 this Court held that an demands and claims filed b) an) heir, le!atee or part) in interest to a testate or intestate succession, shall be acted upon and decided in the same special proceedin!s, and not in a separate action, and the 1ud!e 6ho has 1urisdiction over the administration of the inheritance, and 6ho, 6hen the time comes, 6ill be called upon to divide and ad1udicate it to the interested parties, shall ta9e co!ni,ance of all such @uestions. (n our opinion the court that approved the partition and the a!reement in ratification thereof ma) annul both 6henever, as it is here alle!ed, the approval 6as obtained b) deceit or fraud, and the petition must be filed in the course of the intestate proceedin!s, for it is !enerall) admitted that the probate courts are authori,ed to vacate an) decree or 1ud!ment procured b) fraud, not onl) 6hile the proceedin!s in the course of 6hich it 6as issued are pendin!, but even, as in this case 6ithin a reasonable time thereafter. 2as reiterated in Busa) vs. Busa) <on,ales, $4# Phil. &#5. he order of the trial court sou!ht to be revie6ed cites the case of omias, et al. vs. omias, et al., C% Phil. .$#. hat case is not here applicable, since it involved the annulment of the decision in ordinar) action for partition, 6hich had alread) become final. he alle!ed natural child*s remed), said the court, 6as to file a separate action a!ainst the children to 6hom the estate had been ad1udicated. More to the point here is the follo6in! statement of this Court in Ramos vs. !rtu"ar, C% Phil. 3-4;

he onl) instance that 6e can thin9 of in 6hich a part) interested in a probate proceedin! ma) have a final li@uidation set aside is 6hen he is left out b) reason of circumstances be)ond his control or throu!h mista9e or inadvertence not impotable to ne!li!ence. Even then, the better practice to secure relief is reopenin! of the same case b) proper motion 6ithin the re!lementar) period, instead of an independent action the effect of 6hich, if successful, 6ould be, as in the instant case, for another court or 1ud!e to thro6 out a decision or order alread) final and executed and reshuffle properties lon! a!o distributed and disposed of. 'inall), in the recent case of #riarte vs. #riarte, et al., <.R. Nos. +-.$%-C--%, Ma) .%, $%34, this Court, thru Austice Arsenio 8i,on, pointed out that there are t6o alternatives for an ac9no6led!ed natural child to prove his status and interest in the estate of the deceased parent, to 6it; 2$5 to intervene in the probate proceedin! if it is still open: and 2.5 to as9 for its reopenin! if it has alread) been closed. D>ERE'"RE, the order appealed from is set aside and the case is remanded to the court of ori!in for further proceedin!, 6ith costs a!ainst appellee. Reyes, J.$.L., %&t'. C.J., (i"on, )aldivar, Castro, *ernando, ee+ankee, $arredo, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ., &on&ur. Con&ep&ion, C.J., is on leave.

4 "oot(ote, $ 8ahlia 6as born in $%=&, t6o )ears before Emilio +ope, died: Ro) 6as born posthumousl).