Dorotheo v.

CA
GR No. 108581, December 8, 1999

FACTS:

Aniceta Reyes died in 1969 without her estate being settled. Thereafter, her husband
Alejandro also died. In 1977, Lourdes Dorotheo filed a special proceeding for the
probate of Alejandro’s last will and testament. The children of spouses filed
their opposition. The RTC ruled that Lourdes being not the wife of Alejandro the will
is intrinsically void; the oppositors are the only heir entitled to the
estate. Lourdes filed a Motion for Consideration arguing that she is entitled to some
compensation since she took care of Alejandro prior to his death although they were
not legally married to each other. This was denied by the trial court. The CA
dismissed her appeal for her failure to wile the same within the extended period.

ISSUE:

May a last will and testament admitted to probate but declared intrinsically void in
an order that has become final and executor still be given effect?

RULING:

No. A final and executor decision or order can no longer be disturbed or reopened no
matter how erroneous it may be.

The Supreme Court ruled that the will of Alejandro was extrinsically valid but
the intrinsic provisions thereof are void. Alejandro gave all the property to the
concubine. Such is invalid because one cannot dispose what he does not own. In this
case, the whole property is the conjugal property of Alejandro and Aniceta. Such has
become final and executor. The only instance where a party interested in probate
proceeding may have a final liquidation set aside is when he is left out by reason of
circumstances beyond his control or through mistake or inadvertence not imputable
to negligence with circumstances do not concur herein.