In the Matter of the will of Donata Manahan,

G.R. No. 38050,

September 22, 1933
WILL; PROBATE OF WILL. The appellant was not entitled to notification of the order admitting the
will to probate, inasmuch as she was not an interested party, not having filed an opposition to the petition
for the probate thereof. Her allegation that she had the status of an heir, being the decedent's sister, did not
confer upon her the right to be notified in view of the fact that the testatrix died leaving a will in which the
appellant has not been instituted heir. Furthermore, not being a forced heir, she did not acquire any
successional right.
AUTHENTICATION AND PROBATE. In the phraseology of the procedural law there is no essential
difference between the authentication of a will and the probate thereof. The words authentication and
probate are synonymous in this case. All the law requires is that the competent court declare that in the
execution of the will the essential external formalities have been complied with and that, in view thereof,
the document, as a will, is valid and effective in the eyes of the law.
CONCLUSIVE CHARACTER OF THE DECREE OF PROBATE. The decree admitting a will to
probate is conclusive with respect to the due execution thereof and it cannot be impugned on any of the
grounds authorized by law, except that of a fraud, in any separate or independent action or proceeding.
PROCEEDINGS "IN REM". The proceedings followed in a testamentary case being in rem, the decree
admitting the will to probate was effective and conclusive against the appellant, in accordance with section
306 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. The appellant could not appeal from the trial court's order denying her
motion for reconsideration and a new trial in view of the fact that said order was interlocutory in character.
Facts:
Tiburcia Manahan, niece of testatrix Donata and her named executrix, instituted special proceedings for the
probate of the will of the deceased. The will was admitted to probate. 1 yr and 7 mos later, Engracia, the
sister of Donata, filed a motion for reconsideration and new trial praying that the order to probate be
vacated and the will be declared null and void ab initio. Trial Court denied the motions. Engracia, under the
pretext of appealing the last order, likewise appealed from the judgement admitting the will to probate. She
assigns the following errors:
1. That she was an interested party and as such, was entitled to be notified of the probate of the
will
2. That the court did not really probate but merely authenticated the will
3. That the will is null and void as the external formalities have not been complied with
Issue:
W/N Engarcias contentions are meritorious?
Held:
NO.
1.

First contention is untenable. She was not entitled to notification of the probate of the will, and
neither had she right to expect it as she was not an interested party- she did not file her opposition
that she was not instituted as an heir. she is not a forced heir, hence no successional right.

2.

Second contention is puerile. There is no essential difference between the authentication of the
will and the probate thereof.

3.

Once the will has been admitted to probate, questions as to its validity can no longer be raised on
appeal. The decree of probate is conclusive with respect to the due execution thereof and cannot
be impugned, except on the ground of fraud. Moreover, proceedings in a testamentary case are in
rem, hence it is binding upon her.