GR 237133; (January, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 237133 , January 20, 2021
MIGDONIO RACCA AND MIAM GRACE DIANNE RACCA, PETITIONERS, VS. MARIA LOLITA A. ECHAGUE, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
On March 28, 2017, respondent Maria Lolita A. Echague filed a Petition for the allowance of the will of the late Amparo Ferido Racca and for issuance of letters testamentary. The petition named petitioners Migdonio Racca (Amparo’s husband) and Miam Grace Dianne Ferido Racca (Amparo’s daughter) as known heirs. The RTC found the petition sufficient and set it for hearing on June 21, 2017. The Notice of Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation. Petitioners failed to appear at the hearing, prompting the RTC to declare them in default. Petitioners filed a Motion to Lift Order of General Default, alleging excusable negligence: Migdonio received the notice only two days before the hearing and, due to advanced age and poor health, could not act promptly; Miam did not receive any notice. They also raised grounds to oppose the will, including Amparo’s alleged mental incapacity. The RTC denied their motion, holding that the jurisdictional requirements of publication and posting were substantially complied with. The RTC also denied their motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE
1. May the Order of General Default issued by the RTC against the petitioners be set aside?
2. Are known heirs of the testator still entitled to personal notice despite the publication and posting of the notice of the hearing?
RULING
The petition is meritorious. Petitioners were not properly notified in accordance with Section 4, Rule 76 of the Revised Rules of Court.
1. An Order of General Default does not apply in probate proceedings. The Court clarified that Section 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows declaration of default, applies only to contentious litigations where a party is impleaded as a defendant and served with process. A probate proceeding is a special proceeding, not a contentious litigation. Therefore, an order of default is improper in probate cases.
2. Personal notice to known heirs is mandatory. The Court emphasized that under Section 4, Rule 76, the court must cause notice to be personally delivered to the known heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator resident in the Philippines at their places of residence. While publication is a jurisdictional requirement, personal notice to heirs whose residences are known is also mandatory and not merely a matter of procedural convenience. The trial court cannot abdicate this duty by relying solely on publication, as doing so would render the procedural safeguard nugatory. Since petitioners were known heirs and their places of residence were known, they were entitled to personal notice. The failure to provide such notice warranted the setting aside of the default order.