ANTILANO G. MERCADO v.

ALFONSO SANTOS proceeding before a court or judge of the Philippine

[GR No. 45629 | September 22, 1938] Islands or of the United States, or of any State or
Territory of the United States, having jurisdiction to
pronounce the judgment or order, may be as follows:
(Note: The applicable law is the Code of Civil Procedure
which is then governing the law on wills) 1. In case of a judgment or order against a specific
thing, or in respect to the probate of a will, or
FACTS: On May 28, 1931, the petitioner herein, Antilano the administration of the estate of a deceased
Mercado, filed in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga a person, or in respect to the personal, political, or
petition for the probate of the will of his deceased wife, Ines legal condition or relation of a particular person,
Basa. Without any opposition, and upon the testimony of the judgment or order is conclusive upon the
Benigno F. Gabino, one of the attesting witnesses, the title of the thing, the will or administration, or
probate court, on June 27, 1931, admitted the will to probate. the condition or relation of the person Provided,
Almost three years later, on April 11, 1934, the five That the probate of a will or granting of letters
intervenors herein moved ex parte to reopen the proceedings, of administration shall only be prima facie
alleging lack of jurisdiction of the court to probate the will and evidence of the death of the testator or
to close the proceedings. Because filed ex parte, the motion intestate.
was denied. The same motion was filed a second time, but
with notice to the adverse party. The motion was Section 625 of the same Code is more explicit as to the
nevertheless denied by the probate court on May 24, 1934. conclusiveness of the due execution of a probate will. It says.
On appeal, to this court, the order of denial was affirmed on
Section 625. Allowance Necessary, and Conclusive
July 26, 1935.
as to Execution. – No will shall pass either the real or
It appears that in 1932, the Petitioner and the Intervenor, personal estate, unless It is proved and allowed in
Rosario Basa, attempted to reach a settlement as to the the Court of First Instance, or by appeal to the
disposition of the deceased’s property, under threats or Supreme Court; and the allowance by the court of a
pressure on the part of the intervenor to file a Criminal will of real and personal estate shall be conclusive
Complaint for Forgery against the petitioner. Failing such as to its due execution.
compromise, the intervenor filed a criminal complaint for
Section 333, paragraph 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure
forgery against the petitioner in 1932 before the Justice of
establishes an incontrovertible presumption in favor of
Peace of San Fernando, Pampanga. Again, the petitioner was
judgments declared by it to be conclusive.
arrested put up a bond, and again the complaint was
dismissed at the instance of the complainant herself, averring Section 333. Conclusive Presumptions. – The
that she had to withdraw the case because of the “failing following presumptions or deductions, which the law
health” of the petitioner, who had tuberculosis. The petitioner expressly directs to be made from particular fact, are
was charged a third and fourth time for the same criminal deemed conclusive.
offense. In 1934, after the filing of the fourth complaint for
forgery, however, the provincial fiscal investigated the case 4. The judgment or order of a court, when
and filed the Information against petitioner for Forgery. The declared by this code to be conclusive.
case proceeded to trial at the CFI, where the petitioner filed a
Demurrer, alleging that the probate of the will is conclusive as As our law on will, particularly section 625 of our Code of Civil
to the authenticity and due execution thereof (Sec. 625 of the Procedure aforequoted, was taken almost bodily from the
Code of Civil Procedure). The demurrer was denied by the Statutes of Vermont, the decisions of the Supreme Court of
CFI. On petition for certiorari at the CA, the CA held that the that State relative to the effect of the probate of a will are of
criminal proceedings against the petitioner should proceed. persuasive authority in this jurisdiction.
Hence, this review on certiorari of the CA decision.
Under the American Law, the probate of a will in this
ISSUE: Whether or not the probate of the will of Mercado’s jurisdiction is a proceeding in rem. The provision of notice by
deceased wife is a bar to his criminal prosecution for the publication as a pre-requisite to the allowance of a will is
alleged forgery of the said will. – YES. constructive notice to the whole world, and when probate is
granted, the judgment of the court is binding upon
RULING: In view of the provisions of section 306, 333 and everybody, even against the State. This rule is followed in our
625 of our Code of Civil Procedure, criminal action will not jurisdiction.
lie in this jurisdiction against the forger of a will which
had been duly admitted to probate by a court of Conflicting Rules on the Effect of the Probate of the Will
competent jurisdiction.
American and English Jurisprudence, however, provide
The law creates a conclusive presumption as to the due conflicting rules as to the effect of the probate of the will with
execution of the will after it is admitted into probate. regard to criminal prosecution. The majority decision of the
Court of Appeals (under American Jurisdiction) cites English
Section 306 of our Code of Civil Procedure provides as to the decisions to bolster up its conclusion that “the judgment
effect of judgments. admitting the will to probate is binding upon the whole world
as to the due execution and genuineness of the will insofar as
Section 306. Effect of judgment. – the effect of a civil rights and liabilities are concerned, but not for the
judgment or final order in an action or special purpose of punishment of a crime.” It appears, therefore, in

1
some cases, that while the law creates a conclusive
presumption as to the disposition of the property of the
deceases, real or personal, such conclusive presumption
“does not protect the forger from punishment.”

In other cases, however, the courts ruled that “A judgment

admitting a will to probate cannot be attacked collaterally
although the will was forged; and a payment tot the executor
names therein of a debt due the decedent will discharge the
same, notwithstanding the spurious character of the
instrument probated. It has also been held that, upon an
indictment for forging a will, the probate of the paper in
question is conclusive evidence in the defendant’s favor of its
genuine character.”

This conflict among cases behooves us, therefore, as the

court of last resort, to choose that rule most consistent with
our statutory law, having in view the needed stability of
property rights and the public interest in general.

It is clear, however, that a duly probated will cannot be

declared to be a forgery without disturbing in a way the
decree allowing said will to be probate. It is at least
anomalous that a will should be regarded as genuine for one
purpose and spurious for another. Not only does that law
surround the execution of the will with the necessary
formalities and require probate to be made after an elaborate
judicial proceeding, but section 113, not to speak of section
513, of our Code of Civil Procedure provides for an adequate
remedy to any party who might have been adversely affected
by the probate of a forged will, much in the same way as
other parties against whom a judgment is rendered under the
same or similar circumstances. The aggrieved party may file
an application for relief with the proper court within a
reasonable time, but in no case exceeding six months after
said court has rendered the judgment of probate, on the
ground of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable
neglect. An appeal lies to review the action of a court of first
instance when that court refuses to grant relief. After a
judgment allowing a will to be probated has become final and
unappealable, and after the period fixed by section 113 of the
Code of Civil Procedure has expired, the law as an expression
of the legislative wisdom goes no further and the case ends
there.

We hold, therefore, that in view of the provision of sections

305, 333 and 625 of our Code of Civil Procedure, criminal
action will not lie in this jurisdiction against the forger of a will
which had been duly admitted to probate by a court of
competent jurisdiction.

Dispositive: Mercado is entitled to have the criminal

proceedings against him quashed; the CA judgment is
reversed, without pronouncement as to costs.