Rule 79, Rules of Court

Parties in interest in special proceedings

TRILLANA vs. CRISOSTOMO

89 Phil. 710
G.R. No. L-3378             August 22, 1951

FACTS:
The deceased, Damasa Crisostomo, allegedly made two wills: one will was
made on August 16, 1948 and the other will was executed on October 19, 1948.
Trillana, the administrator of the estate, presented the subsequent will executed
on October 19 for probate, and was granted by the court.
Crisostomo and others, claiming to be nephews and nieces of the
deceased, filed a petition for relief of the judgment rendered by the probate
court to disallow the subsequent will and allow the former will executed on
August 16, alleging that the proceedings during the probate of the subsequent
will was attended by fraud.

Contention of the Appellants( Crisostomo et al):

Appellants argue that they are interested parties and therefore may
appeal in the present case, because in the event the will of October 19 is
disallowed and that of August 16 is allowed, and the legacies in the latter are
declared invalid or the legatees incapable to inherit, the legacies will go to the
appellants. 

Contentiton of the Appellee (Trillana)

The will of August 16, 1948 was expressly and absolutely revoked by the
will of October 19, 1948, executed by the same executrix or deceased. The
probate of the subsequent will was not attended by fraud and the appellants
show no proof of the alleged fraud committed in the probate of the subsequent
will.

ISSUE:
1. Whether a revoked will must be included in the probate of the subsequent
will.
2. Are the appellants parties in interest in the present case and therefore
entitled to appeal the decision of the lower court?
RULING:
1. No, a revoked will may no longer be presented in the probate of the
subsequent will.
 If two wills are presented for allowance but one of them was a revoked
will, it cannot be included in the probate of the latter subsequent will, because it
would be a waste of time to allow the revoked will if the subsequent revoking will
is allowed. The revoked will may be probated and allowed only if the subsequent
revoking will is disallowed.

2. No, the appellants are not considered as interested parties in the probate
proceedings of the will of the deceased Damasa Crisostomo, and therefore, are
not entitled to appeal the decision of the lower court.
In civil actions and special proceedings, unless otherwise provided by law,
the interest in order that a person may be a party on appeal must be
material and direct, so that he will be materially and directly benefited
or injured by the court's order, decree or judgment: and not indirect or
contingent.
The appellants in the present case merely allege in their petition for relief
that they are "nephews and nieces and therefore legal heirs of the deceased
Damasa Crisostomo," without specifying the degree of relationship they had to
the latter. They contend that if the will made on October 19, 1949, be
disallowed, they will inherit the estate left by the testatrix. The interest claimed
by the appellants is purely contingent or dependent upon several uncertain and
future events to (1) The disallowance of the will of October 19, 1948 (2) The
allowance of the will of August 16, 1948, and (3) invalidation of certain legacies
left in said will of August 16, 1948.

LEB