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.