Mandatory requirement

This case is about the allowance of a Last Will and Testament. The main issue answered here is whether the publication of the notice of hearing to the heirs is sufficient.

The case involves the Last Will and Testament executed by Amelia five years before she died. Amelia is married to Armando and they have one daughter, Martha.

Two years after Amelia died, Lina, who is the alleged executor of the will, designated by Amelia, filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a Petition for the Allowance of said will and issuance of letters testamentary in her favor. Lina alleged that in the said notarized will, Amelia bequeathed an undivided portion of a parcel of land consisting of one-fourth (1/4) of her estate, or 412.5 square meters, in favor of her grandnephew, Lando.

Amelia also named Armando and Martha as her known heirs.

Finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, the RTC issued an order setting the case for hearing with a corresponding Notice of Hearing on a fixed date. Said order was posted and published in a newspaper of general circulation.

The hearing proceeded as scheduled but Armando and Martha failed to appear, thus prompting the RTC to declare them in default.

So, Armando and Martha filed a Motion to Lift the Order of Default, alleging that Armando received a copy of the notice of hearing only two days before the scheduled date and since he was already of advanced age, being 78 years old, and not in perfect health, he could not immediately act on the notice within such a short period to protect their interest.

Martha, on the other hand, did not receive any notice. Due to their ignorance of the procedural rules and financial constraints, they said that they were not immediately able to secure a counsel to represent their interest.

The RTC, however, denied the motion of Armando and Martha. It held that the jurisdictional requirements of publication and posting of the notices had been substantially complied with.

Armando and Martha filed a Motion for Reconsideration, contending that being compulsory heirs, they have an interest in the probate of the will and there are clear grounds to question it, such as the mental condition of Amelia when she executed the will and the property bequeathed to Lando was a conjugal property.

The RTC, however, still denied Armando and Martha’s Motion for Reconsideration. Was the RTC correct?

The Supreme Court (SC), on a Petition for Review filed by Armando and Martha, ruled that the RTC is not correct. Under Section 4, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court, personal notice of the time and place of hearing for the probate of the will must be given to the designated and known heirs, legatees and devisees residing in the Philippines at their known addresses. This was not complied with in this case.

The language of Section 4, which used the word “shall,” means that it is mandatory and compulsory to cause copies of the notice of the date and time of the hearing to be furnished to the known and designated heirs, legatees and devisees in order to safeguard their right to due process of law.

Under Section 4, Rule 76, personal notice must either be (1) deposited in the post office with the postage thereon prepaid at least 20 days before the hearing or (2) personally served at least 10 days before the day of hearing.

In the case of Armando, there was no evidence that the notice addressed to him was deposited in the post office at least 20 days before the day of hearing. Even assuming that the notice was personally served, the same was not in substantial compliance with the rule because he received a copy only two days before the hearing.

Moreover, it cannot be expected that Armando, an ailing 78-year-old who is not knowledgeable of legal procedure, could intelligently and promptly act upon receipt of such notice. The RTC therefore committed a reversible error in issuing an order of default against Armando and Martha.

The requirement of personal notice of hearing to the known heirs is mandatory and cannot be satisfied by mere publication.

This is the ruling in Racca and “Racca vs. Echague, G.R. 237133, Jan. 20, 2021.”