G.R. No. L-3932; February 29, 1952
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE LEODEGARIA VILLANUEVA. ELISA CUISON, ET AL., petitioners-appellants, vs. NICOLAS VILLANUEVA, ET AL., oppositors-appellees. FLAVIANO LACSON, judicial administrator.

FACTS

On February 14, 1939, Manuel Cuison filed a petition for the probate of the will of Leodegaria Villanueva, who died on December 14, 1938. The instituted heirs in the will were Reynaldo Cuison (a nephew) and six minor Macasa children (grandnephews and nieces). Manuel Cuison was appointed administrator. The probate was opposed by Nicolas Villanueva and other relatives. The lower court initially dismissed the petition, reinstated it, then denied probate on November 28, 1941, declaring the deceased intestate. After a motion for reconsideration, the order denying probate was reconsidered on December 6, 1941, but proceedings were interrupted by the outbreak of war. On December 16, 1948, oppositors moved for definite dismissal, and on January 10, 1949, the court definitively denied the petition for probate. On August 16, 1949, Elisa Cuison and others (siblings of Reynaldo Cuison) entered the case for the first time, claiming Reynaldo died intestate on February 12, 1939, leaving no descendants, and that they, along with Manuel Cuison, were his heirs. They filed a petition for relief under Rule 38 from the January 10, 1949 order, alleging they had no actual knowledge of the order until July 1949, were constructive parties to the in rem proceedings, and their non-appearance was excusable negligence. The trial court, by order of February 18, 1950, denied the petition for relief, not on its merits, but on the ground that under Article 925 of the Civil Code, the petitioners had no right to represent their deceased brother Reynaldo in the inheritance and thus had no interest or personality to intervene. Petitioners Elisa Cuison et al. appealed this order.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners-appellants, as heirs of the legatee Reynaldo Cuison, have a sufficient interest in the will or the property affected thereby to entitle them to intervene in the probate proceedings and file a petition for relief.

RULING

Yes. The order appealed from is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court. The trial court correctly held that a person must show an interest in the will or the property to intervene in probate proceedings. However, it erred in holding that petitioners were invoking the right of representation under Article 925 of the Civil Code to succeed to the testatrix. Petitioners are not seeking to represent their brother Reynaldo in succeeding to the testatrix’s estate. Instead, they seek to inherit, in their own right, the legacy that had already vested in their brother Reynaldo. Upon the death of the testatrix, Reynaldo Cuison, being alive at that time, acquired the right to the legacy under Articles 657 and 651 of the Civil Code. Upon his subsequent death, he transmitted that right to his heirs, the petitioners herein. Therefore, the petitioners have an interest in the will or the property affected by it as heirs of the legatee. Consequently, they had the right to intervene and file the petition for relief under Rule 38. The case is remanded for the trial court to rule on the petition for relief based on its merits.