Dorotheo v.

CA
G.R. No. 108581. December 8, 1999
Doctrine: The intrinsic validity is another matter and questions regarding the same may still be raised even
after the will has been authenticated. This is specially so when the courts had already determined in a final and
executory decision that the will is intrinsically void. Such determination having attained that character of finality
is binding on this Court which will no longer be disturbed.

Recit-ready Summary: Decedent’s will was admitted to probate but the said will was subsequently declared
intrinsically void in an order that has become final and executory. Petitioner sought to give effect to the said
will. The will admitted to probate but declared intrinsically void in an order that has become final and
executory still be cannot be given effect. It does not necessarily follow that an extrinsically valid last will and
testament is always intrinsically valid. Even if the will was validly executed, if the testator provides for
dispositions that deprives or impairs the lawful heirs of their legitime or rightful inheritance according to the
laws on succession, the unlawful provisions/dispositions thereof cannot be given effect. This is specially so
when the courts had already determined in a final and executory decision that the will is intrinsically void. Such
determination having attained that character of finality is binding on this Court which will no longer be
disturbed.

Facts:
Private respondents (Vicente and Jose Dorotheo) were the legitimate children of Alejandro Dorotheo and
Aniceta Reyes. The latter died in 1969 without her estate being settled. Alejandro died thereafter. Sometime in
1977, after Alejandro’s death, petitioner (Lourdes Dorotheo), who claims to have taken care of Alejandro before
he died, filed a special proceeding for the probate of the latter’s last will and testament.

In 1981, the court issued an order admitting Alejandro’s will to probate. Private respondents did not appeal
from said order. In 1983, they filed a “Motion To Declare The Will Intrinsically Void.” The trial court granted
the motion and issued an order, declaring Lourdes Legaspi not the wife of the late Alejandro Dorotheo, the
provisions of the last will and testament of Alejandro Dorotheo as intrinsically void, and declaring the
oppositors as the only heirs of the late spouses Alejandro Dorotheo and Aniceta Reyes, whose respective estates
shall be liquidated and distributed according to the laws on intestacy upon payment of estate and other taxes
due to the government.”

Petitioner moved for reconsideration arguing that she is entitled to some compensation since she took care of
Alejandro prior to his death although she admitted that they were not married to each other, which was denied.
On appeal, the same was dismissed for failure to file appellant’s brief within the extended period granted. This
dismissal became final and executory on February 3, 1989. An Order was issued by Judge Zain B. Angas setting
aside the final and executory Order on the ground that the order was merely “interlocutory”, hence not final in
character. The court added that the dispositive portion of the said Order even directs the distribution of the
estate of the deceased spouses. Private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied
private respondents filed a petition before the Court of Appeals, which nullified the two assailed Orders

Aggrieved, petitioner instituted a petition for review arguing that the case filed by private respondents before
the Court of Appeals was a petition under Rule 65 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion or lack of
jurisdiction.

Issue: May a last will and testament admitted to probate but declared intrinsically void in an order that has
become final and executory still be given effect? NO

Ruling:
The petition is without merit. A final and executory decision or order can no longer be disturbed or reopened
no matter how erroneous it may be. In setting aside, the January 30, 1986 Order that has attained finality, the
TC in effect nullified the entry of judgment made by the CA. It is well settled that a lower court cannot reverse
or set aside decisions or orders of a superior court, for to do so would be to negate the hierarchy of courts and
nullify the essence of review. It has been ruled that a final judgment on probated will, albeit erroneous, is
binding on the whole world.

It should be noted that probate proceedings deal generally with the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be
probated, particularly on the following aspects:
o whether the will submitted is indeed, the decedent's last will and testament;
o compliance with the prescribed formalities for the execution of wills;
o the testamentary capacity of the testator;
o and the due execution of the last will and testament.

The intrinsic validity is another matter and questions regarding the same may still be raised even after the will
has been authenticated. Thus, it does not necessarily follow that an extrinsically valid last will and
testament is always intrinsically valid. Even if the will was validly executed, if the testator provides for
dispositions that deprives or impairs the lawful heirs of their legitime or rightful inheritance according to the
laws on succession, the unlawful provisions/dispositions thereof cannot be given effect. This is specially so
when the courts had already determined in a final and executory decision that the will is intrinsically
void. Such determination having attained that character of finality is binding on this Court which will
no longer be disturbed. Not that this Court finds the will to be intrinsically valid, but that a final and executory
decision of which the party had the opportunity to challenge before the higher tribunals must stand and should
no longer be reevaluated. Failure to avail of the remedies provided by law constitutes waiver. And if the party
does not avail of other remedies despite its belief that it was aggrieved by a decision or court action, then it is
deemed to have fully agreed and is satisfied with the decision or order. As early as 1918, it has been declared
that public policy and sound practice demand that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments of courts must at
some point of time fixed by law become final otherwise there will be no end to litigation. Interes rei publicae ut
finis sit litium — the very object of which the courts were constituted was to put an end to controversies. To
fulfill this purpose and to do so speedily, certain time limits, more or less arbitrary, have to be set up to spur
on the slothful. The only instance where a party interested in a 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, which circumstances do not concur herein.