RUFINO COLOMA AND TIMOTEO COLOMA, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELANTS, VS. ATANACIO COLOMA, MAMERTO COLOMA AND CALIXTO COLOMA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Coloma versus Coloma

The Case

This is the case of Coloma versus Coloma, decided by the Supreme Court in July 1965. Two brothers, Rufino Coloma and Timoteo Coloma, sued their brother Atanacio Coloma and his sons, Mamerto Coloma and Calixto Coloma, asking the court to partition thirteen parcels of land in Piddig, Ilocos Norte, which their uncle Agapito Geronimo had left when he died. The plaintiffs claimed they were intestate heirs and co-owners, and that the will the defendants produced had never been validly probated. The defendants answered that the will had in fact been admitted to probate and the estate distributed, and that the plaintiffs were bound by those final orders. The case matters because it teaches the binding, world-wide effect of a probate proceeding, and the rule that only forced heirs may complain of a will that disinherits them.

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed their complaint for partition in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, docketed as Civil Case Number 3331. The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint stated no cause of action, because the plaintiffs were neither heirs nor co-owners, the will of Agapito Geronimo having been probated in Special Proceedings Number 3204 and the plaintiffs not being named therein. The plaintiffs opposed the motion, and then, without leave of court, filed an amended complaint attacking the probate proceedings as void for want of notice to all known heirs and for publication in a newspaper not of general circulation in the province. The trial court dismissed the case on the ground of res judicata. The plaintiffs appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Facts

Agapito Geronimo died leaving thirteen parcels of land in Piddig, Ilocos Norte. He had a sister, Leocadia Geronimo, who predeceased him. Leocadia's children were Rufino, Timoteo, and Atanacio, all surnamed Coloma, making them the nephews of the deceased. Agapito left a last will and testament. In that will, the defendants Atanacio Coloma, Mamerto Coloma, and Calixto Coloma, together with other relatives, were instituted as heirs and devisees. The plaintiffs Rufino and Timoteo were not instituted as heirs. Rufino Coloma was in fact one of the instrumental witnesses to the execution of the will.

The will was offered for probate in Special Proceedings Number 3204 before the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. Notice of the hearing was published. On September 16, 1960, the court issued an order admitting the will to probate and declaring the instituted heirs entitled to participate in the estate and to divide it among themselves. On March 3, 1961, the court approved the deed of partition among the instituted heirs. Both orders became final and unappealable.

Meanwhile, in February 1961, the plaintiffs filed their complaint for partition, claiming that after their uncle's death they and Atanacio had owned the lands in common, tilling them together and dividing the harvest in three equal shares, until the defendants in 1953 excluded them. They asked that the lands be divided among the three brothers in equal portions, with an accounting of the produce. When the defendants invoked the probated will, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to attack the probate as void for fraud and lack of notice.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for partition on the ground of res judicata, in view of the final orders in the probate proceedings.
• Whether or not the plaintiffs, as collateral relatives who were not instituted in the will, were entitled to notice of the probate proceedings and may now attack the probate as void.
• Whether or not the plaintiffs, not being forced heirs, may claim any share in the estate of a relative who died testate.

Applicable Provisions

Article 766 of the New Civil Code, as quoted in the trial court's order, provides:

A voluntary heir who dies before the testator transmits nothing to his heirs.

This bears on the case because the plaintiffs' mother, Leocadia, was a mere voluntary heir of her brother Agapito, and having predeceased him, she transmitted nothing to her children, so the plaintiffs are not forced heirs.

Section 4 of Rule 77 of the Rules of Court, as discussed in the decision, provides:

Copies of the notice of the time and place fixed for proving the will should be addressed to the known heirs, legatees and devisees of the testator.

This bears on the case because the plaintiffs were neither heirs, legatees, nor devisees under the will, and so were not among those entitled to personal notice.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court correctly dismissed the case on the ground of res judicata. The order admitting the will to probate and the order approving the distribution of the estate had become final and unappealable. The probate court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties, and its orders were rendered on the merits after due hearings. The Court found an identity of parties, of subject matter, and of cause of action between the probate proceedings and the partition case, since both concerned all the properties left by Agapito Geronimo and the question of who was entitled to inherit them.

On the second issue, the Court held that the probate proceeding was a proceeding in rem, directed against the whole world, including the plaintiffs. Publication of the notice was constructive notice to everyone, and the judgment in probate bound everybody. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

The probate of a will in this jurisdiction is a proceeding in rem. The provision of notice by publication as a prerequisite to the allowance of a will is constructive notice to the whole world, and when probate is granted, the judgment of the court is binding upon everybody, even against the State.

On the third issue, the Court held that the plaintiffs, not being forced heirs of Agapito Geronimo, could not claim any participation in the properties of a relative who died testate and who had specified in his will the persons who should inherit. What the plaintiffs sought to be settled had already been settled in the probate proceedings.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain these rules. First, a proceeding for the probate of a will is a proceeding in rem, and notice by publication is constructive notice to the whole world; when probate is granted, the judgment binds everybody, even the State. Second, the final orders admitting a will to probate and approving the distribution of the estate are conclusive upon all persons, and may not be collaterally attacked in a subsequent action for partition. Third, under Article 766 of the New Civil Code, a voluntary heir who dies before the testator transmits nothing to his heirs, so the children of a predeceased voluntary heir are not forced heirs and have no right to any part of the estate once the testator has disposed of it by will. Fourth, only forced heirs whose rights have been prejudiced may intervene to protest a will.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal, with costs against the plaintiffs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the probate of a will is a proceeding in rem, and notice by publication is constructive notice to the whole world, binding upon everybody. Examiners use this case to test res judicata in probate, the conclusiveness of a final probate decree, and the rule that only forced heirs may complain of a will.