Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

1/35

Remedial Law Review 2 || Rule 72-91: Settlement of Estate and Escheats

G.R. No. 128781 August 6, 2002

TERESITA N. DE LEON, ZENAIDA C. NICOLAS and th !EIRS O"ANTONIO NICOLAS, #t$t$on%s,&s. !ON. CO'RT O" A((EALS, !ON. (A)LO (. IN*ENTOR andRA+ON NICOLAS, %s#ondnts.

A'STRIA+ARTINEZ, J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of theRules of Court which prays that the Decision dated February 28, 1!and the Resolution dated "pril #, 1! issued by the Court of "ppealsin C"$%&R& '( )o& 4258,1be set aside* and, that another +ud-ent beentered orderin the (residin .ude of Branch 12# of the Reional/rial Court of Caloocan City to ive due course to petitioners0 notice ofappeal, to approve their record on appeal and to elevate the records of'p& (roc& )o& C$1! to respondent appellate court for furtherproceedins&

/he factual bacround3

erein petitioner /eresita )& de eon was appointed ad-inistratri6 ofthe estate of Rafael C& )icolas in 'p& (roc& )o& C$1!, entitled, 7nthe 9atter of the ntestate :state of Rafael C& )icolas7& 'aid case wassubse;uently consolidated with 'p& (roc )o& C$181

71& /itle )o& /$#!#4 located at (olo, Bulacan with an area of 14,11s;& -& distributed as follows3

1&1 1

7#& " -ore co-plete list of the properties to be collated is as follows3

1& /itle )o& /$#!#4 located at (olo, Bulacan with an area of 14,11 s;&-&, 6ero6 copy hereto attached as "nne6 7"7, distributed as follows3

1&1 1uela Bulacan ?"nne6 7B7A, and later sold by:strellita to "-elia i- 'y for (#,4

/he lot with an area of #1< s;& -& is supposedly ear-ared forppositor$applicant Ra-on but was so-ehow included in the Deed of'ale to son "ntonio, and the property is now titled in the na-e of thelatter0s widow, @enaida Carlos )icolas*

5& /C/ )o& /$8554 located at Caloocan City with an area of < s;&-& where the ancestral ho-e is presently located*

& 'on "ntonio received another property with an area of 1,8! s;& -&and sold for (857"ccordinly, the "d-inistratri6 is hereby ordered to include theforeoin properties which were received fro- the decedent forcollation in the instant probate proceedins&

7' RD:R:D&7!

e note that only those lots described under pararaphs #&1&2, #&2and 4 of the 7"-ended 9otion for Collation7 were ordered included forcollation&1wphi1.nt

n )ove-ber 18, 14, petitioner /eresita )& de eon filed a 9otionfor Reconsideration allein that the properties sub+ect of the rder

7were already titled in their na-es years ao78

and that titles -ay notbe collaterally attaced in a -otion for collation& n February 2#, 15,the R/C issued an rder denyin said -otion, rulin that it is withinthe +urisdiction of the court to deter-ine whether titled propertiesshould be collated,citin 'ection 2, Rule < of the Rules of Courtwhich provides that the final order of the court concernin ;uestions asto advance-ents -ade shall be bindin on the person raisin the;uestion and on the heir&

(etitioner /eresita )& de eon filed a 9otion for Reconsideration of therder dated February 2#, 151

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

2/35


n )ove-ber 28, 1, actin on the i-pression that the collation ofthe real properties enu-erated in the rder dated )ove-ber 11, 14is -aintained by the R/C, petitioner /eresita )& de eon filed a 9otionfor Reconsideration prayin that her appoint-ent as ad-inistratri6 be-aintained* and that the properties covered by /C/ )os& /$#8, /$##58, /$#8!, /$4

7

7R:'()D:)/ .D%: "' "C/:D ) :GC:'' F '.R'DC/) ")D / %R"=: "B': F D'CR:/) :)// %=)% (://):R' ((R/)/H / =:)/"/:/:R "((:" : )''/:D ) :"R)% /: 9"//:R' )/: "(()/9:)/ F " R:%"R "D9)'/R"/R ")DC"/) ) D:C:9B:R 24, 1 ")D R:'://)% /'C)/)"/) / .")"RH 21 and 28, 1! )'(/: F /:(:)D:)CH F /: )/C: F "((:" ")DER R:$"FFR9"/) F /: )/C: F "((:" FR9 C "C/'

/:R: ' ) "((:" )R ")H ("), '(::DH ")D "D:I"/:R:9:DH ) /: RD)"RH CR': F "&7

7

7R:'()D:)/ .D%: "C/:D / %R"=: "B': FD'CR:/) :) : DD )/ )CD: ) ' RD:R$")):G. /: :"R)% ) /: F)" D:/:R9)"/) F /C/ )'& /$#!#4, /$#8, /$##58, /$#8!, /$4

ence, herein petition anchored on the followin assin-ents of error37FR'/ "''%)9:)/ F :RRR

7R:'()D:)/ )R"B: CR/ :RR:D :) /D:C"R:D ) /: I:'/):D D:C') /"/ /: RD:RF /: CR/ " I D"/:D )=:9B:R 11, 14 "' F)"&

7':C)D "''%)9:)/ F :RRRKE(L

7R:'()D:)/ )R"B: CR/ :RR:D :) /D:C"R:D ) /: I:'/):D R:'/) /"/ /:R:"' ) C%:)/ R C9(:)% R:"') / D'/RB /:I:'/):D D:C')&71

(etitioners clai- that3 private respondent never presented anydocu-ent to prove that the properties transferred by their deceasedparents to petitioners are by ratuitous title* private respondent nevernotified petitioner of any hearin on said docu-ents to ive the-

opportunity to show cause why their properties should not be collated*the assailed rder dated )ove-ber 11, 14 is arbitrary, capricious,whi-sical, confiscatory, deprivin the- of due process* the said orderis interlocutory in nature and therefore non$appealable* the propertiesac;uired by petitioner /eresita )& de eon and her deceased brother"ntonio )icolas, -arried to petitioner @enaida C& )icolas and theirchildren, were sold to the- as evidenced by public docu-ents* and,the properties were already titled in their respective na-es or sold tothird persons&

(rivate respondent contends that3 due process has been afforded thepetitioners when the R/C resolved the issue of collation of the sub+ectproperties after hearin* petitioner deliberately o-itted certain -aterialfacts in the petition to -islead the Court because petitioners wereactually iven at least three ?#A ti-es the opportunity to ventilate andoppose the issue of collation* as stated by the appellate court in the

Resolution pro-ulated on February 1

7/he court which ac;uires +urisdiction over the properties of adeceased person throuh the filin of the correspondin proceedins,has supervision and control over the said properties, and under thesaid power, it is its inherent duty to see that the inventory sub-itted bythe ad-inistrator appointed by it contains all the properties, rihts andcredits which the law re;uires the ad-inistrator to set out in hisinventory& n co-pliance with this duty the court has also inherent

power to deter-ine what properties, rihts and credits of the deceasedshould be included in or e6cluded fro- the inventory& 'hould an heir orperson interested in the properties of a deceased person duly call thecourt0s attention to the fact that certain properties, rihts or creditshave been left out in the inventory, it is liewise the court0s duty to hearthe observations, with power to deter-ine if such observations shouldbe attended to or not and if the properties referred to thereinbelonprima facieto the intestate, but no such deter-ination is finaland ulti-ate in nature as to the ownership of the saidproperties&721?:-phasis suppliedA

" probate court, whether in a testate or intestate proceedin,22can onlypass upon ;uestions of title provisionally&2#/he rationale therefor andthe proper recourse of the arieved party are e6pounded in Jimenezv. Court of Appeals3

7/he patent reason is the probate court0s li-ited +urisdiction and the

principle that ;uestions of title or ownership, which result in inclusion ore6clusion fro- the inventory of the property, can only be settled in aseparate action&

7"ll that the said court could do as reards said properties is deter-inewhether they should or should not be included in the inventory or list ofproperties to be ad-inistered by the ad-inistrator& f there is a disputeas to the ownership, then the opposin parties and the ad-inistratorhave to resort to an ordinary action for a final deter-ination of theconflictin clai-s of title because the probate court cannot do so&724

Further, n Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, we held3

7M"N probate court or one in chare of proceedins whether testate orintestate cannot ad+udicate or deter-ine title to properties clai-ed tobe a part of the estate and which are clai-ed to belon to outsideparties& "ll that the said court could do as reards said properties is todeter-ine whether they should or should not be included in theinventory or list of properties to be ad-inistered by the ad-inistrator& f

there is no dispute, well and ood, but if there is, then the parties, thead-inistrator, and the opposin parties have to resort to an ordinaryaction for a final deter-ination of the conflictin clai-s of title becausethe probate court cannot do so&725

%uided by the above +urisprudence, it is clear that the Court of "ppealsco--itted an error in considerin the assailed rder dated )ove-ber11, 14 as final or bindin upon the heirs or third persons who disputethe inclusion of certain properties in the intestate estate of thedeceased Rafael )icolas& nder the foreoin rulins of the Court, anyarieved party, or a third person for that -atter, -ay brin an ordinaryaction for a final deter-ination of the conflictin clai-s&

(rivate respondent0s reliance on 'ection 2, Rule < of the Rules ofCourt, to wit3

7':C& 2& uestions as to advancement to be determined. Iuestionsas to advance-ent -ade, or alleed to have been -ade, by the

deceased to any heir -ay be heard and deter-ined by the courthavin +urisdiction of the estate proceedins* and the final order of thecourt thereon shall be bindin on the person raisin the ;uestion andon the heir&7

in support of his clai- that the assailed rder is a final order andtherefore appealable and that due to petitioners0 failure to appeal indue ti-e, they are now bound by said rder, is not feasible&

hat see-s to be a conflict between the above$;uoted Rule and theaforediscussed +urisprudence that the rder in ;uestion is aninterlocutory and not a final order is -ore apparent than real& /his isbecause the ;uestioned rder was erroneously referred to as an orderof collation both by the R/C and the appellate court& For all intents andpurposes, said rder is a -ere order includin the sub+ect properties inthe inventory of the estate of the decedent&

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

3/35


/he Court held in !alero !da. de "odriguez v. Court of Appeals2thatthe order of e6clusion ?or inclusionA is not a final order* that it isinterlocutory in the sense that it did not settle once and for all the titleto the sub+ect lots* that the prevailin rule is that for the purpose ofdeter-inin whether a certain property should or should not beincluded in the inventory, the probate court -ay pass upon the titlethereto but such deter-ination is not conclusive and is sub+ect to thefinal decision in a separate action reardin ownership which -ay beinstituted by the parties&

n the Rodriue> case, the Court distinuished between an order of

collation and an order of e6clusion fro- or inclusion in the estate0sinventory, thus3

7e hold further that the dictu- of the Court of "ppeals and theprobate court that the two disputed lots are not sub+ect to collation wasa supereroation and was not necessary to the disposition of the casewhich -erely involved the issue of inclusion in, or e6clusion fro-, theinventory of the testator0s estate& /he issue of collation was not yet+usticiable at that early stae of the testate proceedin& t is notnecessary to -ention in the order of e6clusion the controversial -atterof collation&

7hether collation -ay e6ist with respect to the two lots and whether9rs& Rustia0s /orrens titles thereto are indefeasible are -atters that-ay be raised later or -ay not be raised at all& ow those issuesshould be resolved, if and when they are raised, need not be touchedupon in the ad+udication of this appeal&

7/he intestate and testate proceedins for the settle-ent of the estatesof the deceased =alero spouses were consolidated, as ordered by thelower court on )ove-ber 21, 1!4, so that the con+ual estate of thedeceased spouses -ay be properly li;uidated, as conte-plated insection 2, Rule !# of the Rules of Court and "ct )o& #1!&

7e have e6a-ined the e#pedientesof the two cases& e found thatthe proceedins have not yet reached the stae when the ;uestion ofcollation or advance-ent to an heir -ay be raised and decided& /henu-erous debts of the decedents are still bein paid& /he netre-ainder ?remanente li$uidoA of their con+ual estate has not yet beendeter-ined& n the other hand, up to this ti-e, no separate action hasbeen brouht by the appellants to nullify 9rs& Rustia0s /orrens titles tothe disputed lots or to show that the sale was in reality a donation&

7n this appeal, it is not proper to pass upon the ;uestion of collationand to decide whether 9rs& Rustia0s titles to the disputed lots are;uestionable& /he proceedins below have not reached the stae of

partition and distribution when the leiti-es of the co-pulsory heirshave to be deter-ined&72!

n the liht of the foreoin, 'ection 2, Rule < should be interpreted inthe conte6t of 'ection 1 of the sa-e Rule, to wit3

7'ection 1& %hen order for distribution of residue made. hen thedebts, funeral chares, and e6penses of ad-inistration, the allowanceto the widow, and inheritance ta6, if any, chareable to the estate inaccordance with law, have been paid, the court, on the application ofthe e6ecutor or ad-inistrator, or of a person interested in the estate,and after hearin upon notice, shall assin the residue of the estate tothe persons entitled to the sa-e, na-in the- and the proportions, orparts, to which each is entitled, and such person -ay de-and andrecover their respective shares fro- the e6ecutor or ad-inistrator, orany other person havin the sa-e in his possession& f there is acontroversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of thedeceased person or as to the distributive shares to which each person

is entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided asin ordinary cases&

)o distribution shall be allowed until the pay-ent of the obliationsabove -entioned has been -ade or provided for, unless thedistributes, or any of the-, ive a bond, in a su- to be fi6ed by thecourt, conditioned for the pay-ent of said obliations within such ti-eas the court directs&7

Based thereon, we find that what the parties and the lower courts haveperceived to be as an rder of Collation is nothin -ore than an orderof inclusion in the inventory of the estate which, as we have alreadydiscussed, is an interlocutory order& /he -otion for collation was filedwith the probate court at the early stae of the intestate estateproceedins& e have e6a-ined the records of the case and we foundno indication that the debts of the decedents spouses have been paidand the net re-ainder of the con+ual estate have already beendeter-ined, and the estates of the deceased spouses at the ti-e filinof the -otion for collation were ready for partition and distribution& nother words, the issue on collation is still pre-ature&

"nd even if we consider, en arguendo, that said assailed rder is acollation order and a final order, still, the sa-e would have no forceand effect upon the parties& t is a hornboo doctrine that a final orderis appealable& "s such, the rder should have e6pressed thereinclearly and distinctly the facts and the laws on which it is based as-andated by 'ection 14, "rticle = of the 18! Constitution of theRepublic of the (hilippines, which provides3

7':C& 14& )o decision shall be rendered by any court withoute6pressin therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on whichit is based&

)o petition for review or -otion for reconsideration of a decision of thecourt shall be refused due course or denied without statin the lealbasis therefore&7

"n e6a-ination of the sub+ect rder as ;uoted earlier,28readily revealsthat the presidin .ude failed to co-ply with the said constitutional-andate& /he assailed rder did not state the reasons for orderin thecollation of the properties enu-erated therein& /he rder si-plydirected the inclusion of certain real properties in the estate of thedeceased& t did not declare that the properties enu-erated thereinwere iven to the children of the deceased ratuitously, despite the title

in the children0s na-es or deeds of sale in their favor& 9oreover, in hisCo--ent, private respondent -aes -ention of the testi-onies of hiswitnesses but these were not even -entioned in the rder of)ove-ber 11, 14& (etitioner would have been deprived of dueprocess as they would be divested of the opportunity of bein able topoint out in a -otion for reconsideration or on appeal, any errors offacts andEor law considerin that there were no facts or laws cited insupport of the assailed rder of collation& "s a final rder, it is, on itsface patently null and void& t could have never beco-e final& " void+ud-ent is not entitled to the respect accorded to a valid +ud-ent,but -ay be entirely disrearded or declared inoperative by any tribunalin which effect is souht to be iven to it& 2For it to be considered as avalid final order, the R/C -ust then first rule and state in its orderwhether the properties covered by /C/ )os& /$#!#4, /$#8, /$##58, /$#8!, /$4

"s to the prayer of petitioners that the R/C be ordered to ive duecourse to their notice of appeal fro- the rders dated )ove-ber 4,1 and Dece-ber 2#, 1 re-ovin petitioner /eresita )& de eonas ad-inistratri6 of the estate of private parties0 deceased parents,#

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

4/35


SE)ASTIAN G. AGTARA(, (etitioner,vs&ED'ARDO G. AGTARA(, OSE(! AGTARA(, TERESA AGTARA(,/ALTER DE SANTOS, and A)ELARDO DAGORO,Respondents&

D : C ' )

NAC!'RA, J.:

Before us are the consolidated petitions for review on certiorari ofpetitioners 'ebastian %& "tarap ?'ebastianA1and :duardo %& "tarap?:duardoA,2assailin the Decision dated )ove-ber 21, 2

:duardo further alleed that there was an i-perative need to appointhi- as special ad-inistrator to tae possession and chare of theestate assets and their civil fruits, pendin the appoint-ent of a reular

ad-inistrator& n addition, he prayed that an order be issued ?aAconfir-in and declarin the na-ed co-pulsory heirs of .oa;uin whowould be entitled to participate in the estate* ?bA apportionin andallocatin unto the na-ed heirs their ali;uot shares in the estate inaccordance with law* and ?cA entitlin the distributees the riht toreceive and enter into possession those parts of the estate individuallyawarded to the-&

n 'epte-ber 2, 14, the R/C issued an order settin the petitionfor initial hearin and directin :duardo to cause its publication&

n Dece-ber 28, 14, 'ebastian filed his co--ent, enerallyad-ittin the alleations in the petition, and concedin to theappoint-ent of :duardo as special ad-inistrator&

.oseph, %loria, and /eresa filed their answerEopposition& /hey alleedthat the two sub+ect lots belon to the con+ual partnership of .oa;uinwith ucia, and that, upon ucia0s death in "pril 124, they beca-e thepro indiviso owners of the sub+ect properties& /hey said that theirresidence was built with the e6clusive -oney of their late father .ose,and the e6penses of the e6tensions to the house were shouldered by%loria and /eresa, while the restaurant ?9anon0s RestaurantA wasbuilt with the e6clusive -oney of .oseph and his business partner&/hey opposed the appoint-ent of :duardo as ad-inistrator on thefollowin rounds3 ?1A he is not physically and -entally fit to do so* ?2Ahis interest in the lots is -ini-al* and ?#A he does not possess thedesire to earn& /hey clai-ed that the best interests of the estate dictatethat .oseph be appointed as special or reular ad-inistrator&

n February 1, 15, the R/C issued a resolution appointin:duardo as reular ad-inistrator of .oa;uin0s estate& Conse;uently, it

issued hi- letters of ad-inistration&

n 'epte-ber 1, 15, "belardo Daoro filed an answer inintervention, allein that 9ercedes is survived not only by herdauhter Cecile, but also by hi- as her husband& e also averred thatthere is a need to appoint a special ad-inistrator to the estate, butclai-ed that :duardo is not the person best ;ualified for the tas&

"fter the parties were iven the opportunity to be heard and to sub-ittheir respective proposed pro+ects of partition, the R/C, on ctober 2#,2

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

5/35


.oseph "tarap, alter de 'antos and half brothers :duardo and'ebastian "tarap in e;ual proportions&

/:R:'" "%/"R"( $ (2#,21&

.':( "%/"R"( $ (2#,21&

"/:R D: '")/' $ (2#,21&

':B"'/") "%/"R"( $ (2#,21&

:D"RD "%/"R"( $ (2#,21&

.ose "tarap died in 1!& is co-pulsory heirs are as follows3C9('RH :R'3

1A %R" ?deceasedA represented by alter de 'antos

$ (25,#4&5!

2A .':( "%/"R"( $ (25,#4&5!

#A /:R:'" "%/"R"( $ (25,#4&5!

4A (R'C" "%/"R"( $ (25,#4&5!

ence, (riscilla "tarap will inherit (25,#4&5!&"ddin their share fro- 9ilaros "tarap, the followin heirs of the first-arriae stand to receive the total a-ount of3:R' F /: FR'/ 9"RR"%:31avvphi1

1A .':( "%/"R"($

(2#,21& share fro- 9ilaros"tarap( 25,#4&5! as co-pulsory heirof(5#1,5&2# .ose "tarap

2A /:R:'" "%/"R"($

(2#,21& share fro- 9ilaros"tarap( 25,#4&5! as co-pulsory heirof(5#1,5&2# .ose "tarap

#A "/:R D:'")/' $

(2#,21& share fro- 9ilaros"tarap( 25,#4&5! as co-pulsory heirof

(5#1,5&2# .ose "tarap:R' F /: ':C)D 9"RR"%:3

aA C"RD"D "%/"R"( $ died on "uust 25, 1

(!,

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

6/35


'ebastian "tarap $ 1E of the estate&

:duardo "tarap $ 1E of the estate&

' RD:R:D&11

"rieved, 'ebastian and :duardo filed their respective -otions forreconsideration&

n its Resolution dated 9arch 2!, 2

2& /he Court of "ppeals erred in not considerin the necessity ofhearin the issue of leiti-acy of respondents as heirs*

#& /he Court of "ppeals erred in allowin violation of the law and innot applyin the doctrines of collateral attac, estoppel, and res

+udicata&1#

%&R& )o& 1!!

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

7/35


"%/"R"(, the f irst -arried to :-ilia 9uscat, and the second -arriedto ucia %arcia 9endiettaA&21 hen /C/ )o& 52# was dividedbetween Francisco Barnes and .oa;uin "tarap, /C/ )o& 1

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

8/35


enceforth, in liht of the foreoin, the assailed )ove-ber 21, 2dated 9arch 2!, 2

:) B")C

A.+. No. (0118 un 2, 2013"o%4%5 OCA I(I No. --66(

RODOL"O C. SA)IDONG, Co-plainant,

vs&NICOLASITO S. SOLAS 3C5% o9 Cou%t I*,Respondent&

D : C ' )

*ILLARA+A, R., J.:

/he present ad-inistrative case ste--ed fro- a sworn letter$co-plaint1dated 9ay 2, 1 filed before this Court by Rodolfo C&'abidon ?co-plainantA charin respondent )icolasito '& 'olas, Clerof Court =, 9unicipal /rial Court in Cities ?9/CCA, loilo City with raveand serious -isconduct, dishonesty, oppression and abuse ofauthority&

/he Facts

/rinidad 'abidon, co-plainant0s -other, is one of the lonti-eoccupants of a parcel of land, desinated as ot 11 ?ot 128

also in the na-e of respondent, were issued on February 28, 1!&

n -otion of :rnesto (e Benito, "d-inistrator of the odes :state, awrit of de-olition was issued on 9arch #, 18 by the probate court infavor of respondent and aainst all adverse occupants of ot 11&!

n .une 14, 1, this Court received the sworn letter$co-plaintassertin that as court e-ployee respondent cannot buy property inlitiation ?conse;uently he is not a buyer in ood faithA, co--itdeception, dishonesty, oppression and rave abuse of authority&Co-plainant specifically alleed the followin3

#& Co-plainant and his siblins, are possessors and occupants of aparcel of land situated at Bry& 'an =icente, .aro, loilo City, thenidentified as ot )o& 128

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

9/35


respondent that he was authori>ed to facilitate the sale, with -orereason that respondent represented hi-self as the City 'heriff*

& /hat between 12$1#, a sister of the co-plainant who wasfortunate to have wored abroad, sent the a-ount of /en /housand?(1ed on .une #,1, however, no copy thereof was iven to the co-plainant by therespondent& Respondent then, too the papers and docu-ents

re;uired by the D9F to be co-pleted, fro- the co-plainant alleedlyfor the purpose of personally filin the sa-e with the D9F&Co-plainant freely and voluntarily delivered all pertinent docu-ents tothe respondent, thinin that respondent was helpin in the fast andeasy release of the loan& hile the said docu-ents were in thepossession of the respondent, he never -ade any transaction with theD9F, worse, when co-plainant tried to secure a copy of the Contractto 'ell, the copy iven was not sined by the )otary (ublic, 6 6 6*

22& /he co-plainant MwasN shoced to learn that respondent had

canceled the sale and that respondent refused to return the docu-entsre;uired by the D9F& Respondent clai-ed that as 'heriff, he cancause the de-olition of the house of the co-plainant and of his fa-ily&Respondent threatened the co-plainant and he is capable of pursuina de-olition order and serve the sa-e with the assistance of the-ilitary& 6 6 6*

2#& "fter learnin of the de-olition order, co-plainant atte-pted tosettle the -atter with the respondent, however, the sa-e proved futileas respondent boasted that the property would now cost at Four/housand Five undred ?(4,5

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

10/35


n 9arch 1, 2

:ventually, the case was assined to .ude Roer B& (atricio, the new:6ecutive .ude of the loilo City R/C for investiation, report andreco--endation&

n .une 2, 2 found respondent liable for serious and rave-isconduct and dishonesty and reco--ended the forfeiture ofrespondent0s salary for si6 -onths, which shall be deducted fro- hisretire-ent benefits&

/he Court "d-inistrator held that by his unilateral acts of e6tinuishinthe contract to sell and forfeitin the a-ounts he received fro-co-plainant and 'aplaio without due notice, respondent failed to actwith +ustice and e;uity& e found respondent0s denial to be anchored

-erely on the fact that he had not issued receipts which was belied byhis ad-ission that he had ased -oney for the e6penses ofpartitionin ot 11 fro- co-plainant and 'aplaio& 'ince their ("%$B% loan applications did not -ateriali>e, co-plainant should havereturned the a-ounts iven to hi- by co-plainant and 'aplaio&

n February 11, 2

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

11/35


9isconduct is a transression of so-e established and definite rule ofaction, -ore particularly, unlawful behavior as well as ross nelienceby a public officer& /o warrant dis-issal fro- service, the -isconduct-ust be rave, serious, i-portant, weihty, -o-entous and not triflin&/he -isconduct -ust i-ply wronful intention and not a -ere error of+ud-ent& /he -isconduct -ust also have a direct relation to and beconnected with the perfor-ance of the public officer0s official dutiesa-ountin either to -alad-inistration or willful, intentional nelect, orfailure to dischare the duties of the office

Dishonesty is the 7disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud or betray*untrustworthiness* lac of interity* lac of honesty, probity, or interityin principle* and lac of fairness and straihtforwardness&74on ?:liseA,represented by her -other, 9a& ourdes Belen ?ourdesA, filed a(etition for etters of "d-inistration before the Reional /rial Court?R/CA of as (iSas Cityn her (etition doceted as '( (roc& )o& 9$#5!, :lise clai-s that she is the natural child of :liseo havin been

conceived and born at the ti-e when her parents were bothcapacitated to -arry each other& nsistin on the leal capacity of:liseo and ourdes to -arry, :lise i-puned the validity of :liseo0s-arriae to "-elia by clai-in that it was bia-ous for havin beencontracted durin the subsistence of the latter0s -arriae with oneFilipito 'andico ?FilipitoA& /o prove her filiation to the decedent, :lise,a-on others, attached to the (etition for etters of "d-inistration herCertificate of ive Birth4sined by :liseo as her father& n the sa-epetition, it was alleed that :liseo left real properties worth(2,

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

13/35


cannot be the source of rihts& "ny interested party -ay attac the-arriae directly or collaterally& " void -arriae can be ;uestionedeven beyond the lifeti-e of the parties to the -arriae&22 t -ust bepointed out that at the ti-e of the celebration of the -arriae of :liseoand "-elia, the law in effect was the Civil Code, and not the Fa-ilyCode, -ain the rulin in )iSal v& Bayado2#applicable four$s;uare tothe case at hand& n )iSal, the Court, in no uncertain ter-s, allowedtherein petitioners to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of theirfather0s -arriae to therein respondent after the death of their father,by contradistinuishin void fro- voidable -arriaes, to wit3

Conse;uently, void -arriaes can be ;uestioned even after the deathof either party but voidable -arriaes can be assailed only durin thelifeti-e of the parties and not after death of either, in which case theparties and their offsprin will be left as if the -arriae had beenperfectly valid& /hat is why the action or defense for nullity isi-prescriptible, unlie voidable -arriaes where the action prescribes&nly the parties to a voidable -arriae can assail it but any properinterested party -ay attac a void -arriae&24

t was e-phasi>ed in )iSal that in a void -arriae, no -arriae hastaen place and it cannot be the source of rihts, such that anyinterested party -ay attac the -arriae directly or collaterally withoutprescription, which -ay be filed even beyond the lifeti-e of the partiesto the -arriae&25

Relevant to the foreoin, there is no doubt that :lise, whosesuccessional rihts would be pre+udiced by her father0s -arriae to"-elia, -ay i-pun the e6istence of such -arriae even after thedeath of her father& /he said -arriae -ay be ;uestioned directly byfilin an action attacin the validity thereof, or collaterally by raisin itas an issue in a proceedin for the settle-ent of the estate of thedeceased spouse, such as in the case at bar& neluctably, :lise, as aco-pulsory heir,2 has a cause of action for the declaration of theabsolute nullity of the void -arriae of :liseo and "-elia, and thedeath of either party to the said -arriae does not e6tinuish suchcause of action&

avin established the riht of :lise to i-pun :liseo0s -arriae to"-elia, we now proceed to deter-ine whether or not the decedent0s-arriae to "-elia is void for bein bia-ous&

Contrary to the position taen by the petitioners, the e6istence of aprevious -arriae between "-elia and Filipito was sufficientlyestablished by no less than the Certificate of 9arriae issued by theDiocese of /arlac and sined by the officiatin priest of the (arish of'an )icolas de /olentino in Capas, /arlac& /he said -arriaecertificate is a co-petent evidence of -arriae and the certificationfro- the )ational "rchive that no infor-ation relative to the said-arriae e6ists does not di-inish the probative value of the entriestherein& e tae +udicial notice of the fact that the first -arriae wascelebrated -ore than 5< years ao, thus, the possibility that a recordof -arriae can no loner be found in the )ational "rchive, iven theinterval of ti-e, is not co-pletely re-ote& Conse;uently, in theabsence of any showin that such -arriae had been dissolved at theti-e "-elia and :liseo0s -arriae was sole-ni>ed, the inescapableconclusion is that the latter -arriae is bia-ous and, therefore, voidab initio&2!

)either are we inclined to lend credence to the petitioners0 contentionthat :lise has not shown any interest in the (etition for etters of"d-inistration&

'ection , Rule !8 of the Revised Rules of Court lays down thepreferred persons who are entitled to the issuance of letters ofad-inistration, thus3

'ec& & hen and to who- letters of ad-inistration ranted& O f noe6ecutor is na-ed in the will, or the e6ecutor or e6ecutors areinco-petent, refuse the trust, or fail to ive bond, or a person diesintestate, ad-inistration shall be ranted3?aA /o the survivin husband or wife, as the case -ay be, or ne6t ofin, or both, in the discretion of the court, or to such person as suchsurvivin husband or wife, or ne6t of in, re;uests to have appointed, ifco-petent and willin to serve*?bA f such survivin husband or wife, as the case -ay be, or ne6t ofin, or the person selected by the-, be inco-petent or unwillin, or ifthe husband or widow, or ne6t of in, nelects for thirty ?#

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

14/35


affir-in the dis-issal2of the petitioner0s co-plaint in Civil Case )o&18

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

15/35


"riola and her brother :d-und e6ecuted loan docu-ents, allestablishin thevinculum (urisor the leal bond between the late:frai- 'antibaSe> and his heirs to be in the nature of a solidaryobliation& Further-ore, the (ro-issory )otes dated 9ay #1, 18a#a>$t as th a##o$ntd S(ECIALAD+INISTRATOR, and ERNESTO R. A+ERO, %s#ondnt.

D E C I S I O N

A'STRIA+ARTINEZ, J.@

/his refers to the petition for review on certiorariseein that theResolution1of the Court of "ppeals ?C"A pro-ulated on .une 14,1 dis-issin the petition for certiorarifiled with it by petitioner9ararito R& .a-ero and the Resolution pro-ulated on )ove-ber24, 1 denyin petitioner0s -otion for reconsideration be set asideand declared null and void on the round that said Resolutions wereissued in a way not in accord with law and +urisprudence&

/he antecedent facts of the case are as follows3

(etitioner filed 'pecial (roceedins )o& 118 for the "d-inistrationand 'ettle-ent of the :state of his deceased -other Consuelo .a-erowith the Reional /rial Court ?R/CA, Branch 4, /abilaran City& (rivaterespondent :rnesto R& .a-ero, a brother of petitioner, opposed thelatter0s petition for appoint-ent as reular ad-inistrator of the estate&

pon -otion of private respondent :rnesto and over the ob+ections ofpetitioner, the respondent court, in its rder dated Dece-ber 4,18,2appointed "tty& "lberto Bautista as special ad-inistratorpendin the appoint-ent of a reular ad-inistrator& (etitioner receivedsaid rder on Dece-ber 11, 18 and filed a -otion forreconsideration on Dece-ber 28, 18, the last day of the 15$dayrele-entary period, that is, Dece-ber 2, 18, fallin on a 'aturdaydurin which, accordin to petitioner, the Bureau of (ost ffice held nooffice& /he court a $uodenied petitioner0s -otion for reconsideration inits rder dated February 2, 1 which petitioner received on 9arch4, 1

n "pril 21, 1, petitioner filed a petition for certiorariwith the C",doceted as C"$%&R& '( )o& 5#

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

18/35


case&1

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

19/35


G.R. No. 16006. A#%$5 22, 200

OSE C. LEE AND AL+A AGGA)AO, $n th$% >a#a>$t$s as(%s$dnt and Co%#o%at S>%ta%, %s#>t$&5, o9 (h$5$##$nInt%nat$ona5 L$9 Insu%an> Co4#an, and "ILI(INO LOANASSISTANCE GRO'(, (t$t$on%s, &s.REGIONAL TRIAL CO'RTO" :'EZON CIT?, )RANC! 8 #%s$dd ; 'DGE (EDRO +.AREOLA, )RANC! CLER< O" CO'RT ANICE ?. ANTERO,DE('T? S!ERI""S ADENA'ER G. RI*ERA and (EDRO L.)ORA, a55 o9 th Rg$ona5 T%$a5 Cou%t o9 :uon C$t )%an>h 8,+A. DI*INA ENDERES >5a$4$ng to ; S#>$a5 Ad4$n$st%at%$B, and

oth% #%sons#u;5$> o99$>%s a>t$ng 9o% and $n th$%;ha59, Rs#ondnts.

R E S O L ' T I O N

CORONA, J.@

For resolution is private respondent 9a& Divina rtaSe>$:nderes0o-nibus -otion to cite petitioners in indirect conte-pt of Court and forthe disbar-ent andEor i-position of disciplinary sanctions onpetitioners0 counsel1for their refusal to co-ply with the final ande6ecutory decision of this Court dated February 2#, 2

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

20/35


co-pel due decoru- and respect in its presence and due obedience toits +ud-ents, orders and processes and in order that a court -ayco-pel obedience to its orders, it -ust have the riht to in;uirewhether there has been any disobedience thereof, for to sub-it the;uestion of disobedience to another tribunal would operate to deprivethe proceedin of half its efficiency&1#

e now proceed to the -erits of the -otion to cite for indirectconte-pt and for i-position of disciplinary sanctions&

/he private respondent allees that the followin acts of the petitionersconstituted indirect conte-pt under 'ection #, Rule !1 of the Rules ofCourt3 ?1A petitioners0 failure to co-ply with the alias writ of e6ecutionserved upon the- on ctober 12, 2

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

21/35


n Sacdalan v. Court of Appeals9 we said3

ell$settled is the principle that a decision that has ac;uired finalitybeco-es i--utable and unalterable and -ay no loner be -odified inany respect even if the -odification is -eant to correct erroneousconclusions of fact or law and whether it will be -ade by the court thatrendered it or by the hihest court of the land&

/he reason for this is that litiation -ust end and ter-inate so-eti-eand so-ewhere, and it is essential to an effective and efficientad-inistration of +ustice that, once a +ud-ent has beco-e final, thewinnin party be not deprived of the fruits of the verdict& Courts -ustuard aainst any sche-e calculated to brin about that result and-ust frown upon any atte-pt to prolon the controversies&

/he only e6ceptions to the eneral rule are the correction of clericalerrors, the so$called nunc pro tuncentries which cause no pre+udice toany party, void +ud-ents, and whenever circu-stancestranspire afterthe finality of the decision renderin its e6ecution un+ustand ine;uitable& 2

/his case does not fall under any of the reconi>ed e6ceptions&9oreover, the i--utability of the February 2#, 2, isliewise stronly warned to refrain fro- any further atte-pts to -ae a-ocery of our +udicial processes&

' RD:R:D&
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_146006_2005.html#fnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_146006_2005.html#fnt27http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_146006_2005.html#fnt27http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_146006_2005.html#fnt26http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/apr2005/gr_146006_2005.html#fnt27

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

22/35


G.R. No. 118671 anua% 2-, 1--6

T!E ESTATE O" !ILARIO +. R'IZ, ED+OND R'IZ,EB>uto%, #t$t$on%, &s. T!E CO'RT O" A((EALS 3"o%4%S#>$a5 S$Bth D$&$s$on, +ARIA (ILAR R'IZ+ONTES, +ARIACAT!R?N R'IZ, CANDICE AL)ERTINE R'IZ, +ARIA ANGELINER'IZ and T!E (RESIDING 'DGE O" T!E REGIONAL TRIALCO'RT O" (ASIG, %s#ondnts.

D E C I S I O N

('NO, J.@

/his petition for review on certiorarisees to annul and set aside thedecision dated )ove-ber 1

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

23/35


releasin titles to properties of the estate a-ounts to an advancedistribution of the estate which is allowed only under the followinconditions3

'ec& 2&Advance distribution in special proceedings& O)othwithstandin a pendin controversy or appeal in proceedins tosettle the estate of a decedent, the court -ay, in its discretion andupon such ter-s as it -ay dee- proper and +ust, per-it that such partof the estate as -ay not be affected by the controversy or appeal bedistributed a-on the heirs or leatees, upon co-pliance with theconditions set forth in Rule < of these Rules&1!

"nd Rule < provides that3

'ec& 1& %hen order for distribution of residue made& O %hen thedebts9 funeral charges9 and e#penses of administration the allowanceto the widow9 and inheritance ta# if an09 chargeable to the estate inaccordance with law9 have been paid9 the court9 on the application ofthe e#ecutor or administrator9 or of a person interested in the estate9and after hearing upon notice shall assign the residue of the estate tothe persons entitled to the same , na-in the- and the proportions orparts, to which each is entitled, and such persons -ay de-and andrecover their respective shares fro- the e6ecutor or ad-inistrator, orany other person havin the sa-e in his possession& f there is acontroversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of thedeceased person or as to the distributive shares to which each personis entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided asin ordinary cases&

)o distribution shall be allowed until the pay-ent of the obliationsabove$-entioned has been -ade or provided for, unless thedistributees, or any of the-, ive a bond, in a su- to be fi6ed by thecourt, conditioned for the pay-ent of said obliations within such ti-eas the court directs&18

n settle-ent of estate proceedins, the distribution of the estateproperties can only be -ade3 ?1A after all the debts, funeral chares,e6penses of ad-inistration, allowance to the widow, and estate ta6have been paid* or ?2A before pay-ent of said obliations only if thedistributees or any of the- ives a bond in a su- fi6ed by the courtconditioned upon the pay-ent of said obliations within such ti-e asthe court directs, or when provision is -ade to -eet thoseobliations&1

n the case at bar, the probate court ordered the release of the titles tothe =alle =erde property and the Blue Ride apart-ents to the privaterespondents after the lapse of si6 -onths fro- the date of first

publication of the notice to creditors& /he ;uestioned order speas of7notice7 to creditors, not pay-ent of debts and obliations& ilario Rui>alleedly left no debts when he died but the ta6es on his estate had nothitherto been paid, -uch less ascertained& /he estate ta6 is one ofthose obliations that -ust be paid before distribution of the estate& fnot yet paid, the rule re;uires that the distributees post a bond or -aesuch provisions as to -eet the said ta6 obliation in proportion to theirrespective shares in the inheritance&2

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

24/35


G.R. No. 17 ";%ua% 6, 2007

EDGAR SAN L'IS, (t$t$on%, &s. "ELICIDAD SANL'IS, Rs#ondnt.

B B

G.R. No. 102- ";%ua% 6, 2007

RODOL"O SAN L'IS, (t$t$on%, &s. "ELICIDAD SAGALONGOSa5$as "ELICIDAD SAN L'IS, Rs#ondnt.

D E C I S I O N

?NARESSANTIAGO, J.:

Before us are consolidated petitions for review assailin the February4, 18 Decision1of the Court of "ppeals in C"$%&R& C= )o& 524!,which reversed and set aside the 'epte-ber 12, 152and .anuary#1, 1#Resolutions of the Reional /rial Court of 9aati City,Branch 1#4 in '(& (roc& )o& 9$#!en, filed a Co-plaint for Divorce5before theFa-ily Court of the First Circuit, 'tate of awaii, nited 'tates of"-erica ?&'&"&A, which issued a Decree %rantin "bsolute Divorceand "wardin Child Custody on Dece-ber 14, 1!#&

n .une 2, auna andnot in 9aati City& t also ruled that respondent was without lealcapacity to file the petition for letters of ad-inistration because her-arriae with Felicisi-o was bia-ous, thus, void ab initio& t foundthat the decree of absolute divorce dissolvin Felicisi-o0s -arriae to9erry ee was not valid in the (hilippines and did not bind Felicisi-owho was a Filipino citi>en& t also ruled that pararaph 2, "rticle 2 ofthe Fa-ily Code cannot be retroactively applied because it wouldi-pair the vested rihts of Felicisi-o0s leiti-ate children&

Respondent -oved for reconsideration 2and for thedis;ualification 2!of .ude "rcanel but said -otions were denied& 28

Respondent appealed to the Court of "ppeals which reversed and setaside the orders of the trial court in its assailed Decision datedFebruary 4, 18, the dispositive portion of which states3

:R:FR:, the rders dated 'epte-ber 12, 15 and .anuary #1,1 are hereby R:=:R':D and ':/ "'D:* the rders datedFebruary 28 and ctober 24, 14 are R:)'/"/:D* and the recordsof the case is R:9")D:D to the trial court for further proceedins& 2

/he appellante court ruled that under 'ection 1, Rule !# of the Rulesof Court, the ter- 7place of residence7 of the decedent, for purposes offi6in the venue of the settle-ent of his estate, refers to the personal,actual or physical habitation, or actual residence or place of abode of aperson as distinuished fro- leal residence or do-icile& t noted thatalthouh Felicisi-o dischared his functions as overnor in auna, heactually resided in "laban, 9untinlupa& /hus, the petition for letters ofad-inistration was properly filed in 9aati City&

/he Court of "ppeals also held that Felicisi-o had leal capacity to-arry respondent by virtue of pararaph 2, "rticle 2 of the Fa-ilyCode and the rulins in =an Dorn v& Ro-illo, .r& #

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

25/35


fi6ed per-anent residence to which when absent, one intends toreturn& /hey clai- that a person can only have one do-icile at anyiven ti-e& 'ince Felicisi-o never chaned his do-icile, the petitionfor letters of ad-inistration should have been filed in 'ta& Cru>,auna&

(etitioners also contend that respondent0s -arriae to Felicisi-o wasvoid and bia-ous because it was perfor-ed durin the subsistenceof the latter0s -arriae to 9erry ee& /hey arue that pararaph 2,"rticle 2 cannot be retroactively applied because it would i-pairvested rihts and ratify the void bia-ous -arriae& "s such,

respondent cannot be considered the survivin wife of Felicisi-o*hence, she has no leal capacity to file the petition for letters ofad-inistration&

/he issues for resolution3 ?1A whether venue was properly laid, and ?2Awhether respondent has leal capacity to file the sub+ect petition forletters of ad-inistration&

/he petition lacs -erit&

nder 'ection 1, #Rule !# of the Rules of Court, the petition for lettersof ad-inistration of the estate of Felicisi-o should be filed in theReional /rial Court of the province 7in which he resides at the ti-e ofhis death&7 n the case of %arcia Fule v& Court of "ppeals, 4 areinapplicable to the instant case because they involve election cases&)eedless to say, there is a distinction between 7residence7 forpurposes of election laws and 7residence7 for purposes of fi6in thevenue of actions& n election cases, 7residence7 and 7do-icile7 aretreated as synony-ous ter-s, that is, the f i6ed per-anent residence towhich when absent, one has the intention of returnin& 42owever, forpurposes of fi6in venue under the Rules of Court, the 7residence7 of aperson is his personal, actual or physical habitation, or actualresidence or place of abode, which -ay not necessarily be his lealresidence or do-icile provided he resides therein with continuity andconsistency&4#ence, it is possible that a person -ay have hisresidence in one place and do-icile in another&

n the instant case, while petitioners established that Felicisi-o wasdo-iciled in 'ta& Cru>, auna, respondent proved that he also-aintained a residence in "laban, 9untinlupa fro- 182 up to theti-e of his death& Respondent sub-itted in evidence the Deed of"bsolute 'ale44dated .anuary 5, 18# showin that the deceasedpurchased the aforesaid property& 'he also presented billinstate-ents45fro- the (hilippine eart Center and Chinese %eneralospital for the period "uust to Dece-ber 12 indicatin theaddress of Felicisi-o at 71ed on .une 2ed thevalidity of the divorce and held that the alien spouse had no interest inthe properties ac;uired by the Filipino wife after the divorce& /hus3

n this case, the divorce in )evada released private respondent fro-the -arriae fro- the standards of "-erican law, under which divorcedissolves the marriage."s stated by the Federal 'upre-e Court of thenited 'tates in "therton vs& "therton, 45 & :d& !4, !3

7/he purpose and effect of a decree of divorce fro- the bond of-atri-ony by a co-petent +urisdiction are to chane the e6istin statusor do-estic relation of husband and wife, and to free the- both fro-the bond& /he -arriae tie, when thus severed as to one party, ceasesto bind either& " husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is

unnown to the law& hen the law provides, in the nature of a penalty,that the uilty party shall not -arry aain, that party, as well as theother, is still absolutely freed fro- the bond of the for-er -arriae&7

/hus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no loner thehusband of petitioner& e would have no standin to sue in the casebelow as petitioner0s husband entitled to e6ercise control over con+ualassets& "s he is bound by the Decision of his own country0s Court,which validly e6ercised +urisdiction over hi-, and whose decision hedoes not repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation beforesaid Court fro- assertin his riht over the alleed con+ual property&5#

"s to the effect of the divorce on the Filipino wife, the Court ruled thatshe should no loner be considered -arried to the alien spouse&Further, she should not be re;uired to perfor- her -arital duties andobliations& t held3

/o -aintain, as private respondent does, that, under our laws,

petitioner has to be consideredstill -arriedto private respondentandstill sub+ect to a wifeWs obliations under "rticle 1ed the validity of a divorce obtained abroad& n thesaid case, it was held that the alien spouse is not a proper party infilin the adultery suit aainst his Filipino wife& /he Court stated that7the severance of the marital bond had the effect of dissociating theformer spouses from each other,hence the actuations of one wouldnot affect or cast oblo;uy on the other&75

iewise, in uita v. Court of Appeals,5!the Court stated that where a

Filipino is divorced by his naturali>ed forein spouse, the rulin in !an6orn applies&58"lthouh decided on Dece-ber 22, 18, the divorcein the said case was obtained in 154 when the Civil Code provisionswere still in effect&

/he sinificance of the !an 6orn case to the develop-ent of li-itedreconition of divorce in the (hilippines cannot be denied& /he rulinhas lon been interpreted as severin -arital ties between parties in a-i6ed -arriae and capacitatin the Filipino spouse to re-arry as anecessary conse;uence of upholdin the validity of a divorce obtainedabroad by the alien spouse& n his treatise, Dr& "rturo 9& /olentinocited !an 6orn statin that 7if the foreiner obtains a valid foreindivorce, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to re-arry under(hilippine law&75n Garcia v. "ecio,

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

26/35


"R/& 2& "ll -arriaes sole-ni>ed outside the (hilippines inaccordance with the laws in force in the country where they weresole-ni>ed, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country,e6cept those prohibited under "rticles #5?1A, ?4A, ?5A and ?A, #, #!and #8&

%here a marriage between a /ilipino citizen and a foreigner is validl0celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validl0 obtained abroad b0 thealien spouse capacitating him or her to remarr09 the /ilipino spouseshall have capacit0 to remarr0 under 3hilippine law. ?:-phasissuppliedA

6 6 6 6>egislative ntent

Records of the proceedins of the Fa-ily Code deliberations showedthat the intent of (araraph 2 of "rticle 2, accordin to .ude "licia'e-pio$Diy, a -e-ber of the Civil Code Revision Co--ittee, is toavoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse re-ains -arriedto the alien spouse who, after obtainin a divorce, is no loner -arriedto the Filipino spouse&

nterestinly, (araraph 2 of "rticle 2 traces its oriin to the 185case of!an 6orn v. "omillo9 Jr./he!an 6orncase involved a-arriae between a Filipino citi>en and a foreiner& /he Court heldtherein that a divorce decree validly obtained by the alien spouse isvalid in the (hilippines, and conse;uently, the Filipino spouse iscapacitated to re-arry under (hilippine law?:-phasis addedA

"s such, the =an Dorn case is sufficient basis in resolvin a situation

where a divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse& iththe enact-ent of the Fa-ily Code and pararaph 2, "rticle 2 thereof,our law-aers codified the law already established throuh +udicialprecedent&1awphi1.net

ndeed, when the ob+ect of a -arriae is defeated by renderin itscontinuance intolerable to one of the parties and productive of nopossible ood to the co--unity, relief in so-e way should beobtainable&49arriae, bein a -utual and shared co--it-entbetween two parties, cannot possibly be productive of any ood to thesociety where one is considered released fro- the -arital bond whilethe other re-ains bound to it& 'uch is the state of affairs where thealien spouse obtains a valid divorce abroad aainst the Filipinospouse, as in this case&

(etitioners cite "rticles 155and 1!of the Civil Code in statin thatthe divorce is void under (hilippine law insofar as Filipinos areconcerned& owever, in liht of this Court0s rulins in the casesdiscussed above, the Filipino spouse should not be discri-inatedaainst in his own country if the ends of +ustice are to be served& !n"lon>o v& nter-ediate "ppellate Court,8the Court stated3

But as has also been aptly observed, we test a law by its results* andliewise, we -ay add, by its purposes& t is a cardinal rule that, inseein the -eanin of the law, the first concern of the +ude shouldbe to discover in its provisions the intent of the law-aer&n;uestionably, the law should never be interpreted in such a way asto cause in+ustice as this is never within the leislative intent& "nindispensable part of that intent, in fact, for we presu-e the ood-otives of the leislature, is to render (ustice&

/hus, we interpret and apply the law not independently of but inconsonance with +ustice& aw and +ustice are inseparable, and we -usteep the- so& /o be sure, there are so-e laws that, while enerallyvalid, -ay see- arbitrary when applied in a particular case because of

its peculiar circu-stances& n such a situation, we are not bound,because only of our nature and functions, to apply the- +ust the sa-e,in slavish obedience to their lanuae& hat we do instead is find abalance between the word and the will, that +ustice -ay be done evenas the law is obeyed&

"s +udes, we are not auto-atons& e do not and -ust not unfeelinlyapply the law as it is worded, yieldin lie robots to the literal co--andwithout reard to its cause and conse;uence& 7Courts are apt to err bysticin too closely to the words of a law,7 so we are warned, by.ustice ol-es aain, 7where these words i-port a policy that oesbeyond the-&7

6 6 6 6

9ore than twenty centuries ao, .ustinian defined +ustice 7as theconstant and perpetual wish to render every one his due&7 /hat wishcontinues to -otivate this Court when it assesses the facts and the lawin every case brouht to it for decision& .ustice is always an essentialinredient of its decisions& /hus when the facts warrants, we interpretthe law in a way that will render +ustice, presu-in that it was theintention of the law-aer, to bein with, that the law be dispensed with+ustice&

"pplyin the above doctrine in the instant case, the divorce decreealleedly obtained by 9erry ee which absolutely allowed Felicisi-o tore-arry, would have vested Felicidad with the leal personality to filethe present petition as Felicisi-o0s survivin spouse& owever, therecords show that there is insufficient evidence to prove the validity ofthe divorce obtained by 9erry ee as well as the -arriae ofrespondent and Felicisi-o under the laws of the &'&"& n %arcia v&Recio, !

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

27/35


Reional /rial Court which denied petitioners0 -otion to dis-iss and itsctober 24, 14 rder which dis-issed petitioners0 -otion forreconsideration is "FFR9:D& et this case be R:9")D:D to the trialcourt for further proceedins&

' RD:R:D&

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

28/35


G.R. No. 1017 ";%ua% , 2007

ERLINDA (ILA(IL and !EIRS O" DONATA ORTIZ )RIONES,na45@ ESTELA, ERI)ERTO AND *IRGILIO SANTOS, ANASANTOS C'LT'RA, EL*IRA SANTOS INOCENTES, ERNESTO+ENDOZA, RIZALINA SANTOS, ADOL"O +ENDOZA and (ACITA+ENDOZA, (t$t$on%s, &s. !EIRS O" +AI+INO R. )RIONES,na45@ SIL*ERIO S. )RIONES, (ETRA )RIONES, )ONI"ACIOCA)A!'G, R., ANITA TRAS+ONTE, CIRILITA "ORT'NA,CRESENCIA )RIONES, "'G'RACION +EDALLE and +ERCEDESLAG)AS, Rs#ondnts.

R E S O L ' T I O N

C!ICONAZARIO, J.:

n 1< 9arch 2alinaA*Ri>alina0s dauhter, :rlinda (ilapil ?:rlindaA* and the other nephews

and nieces of Donata, in representation of her two other sisters whohad also passed away& Respondents, on the other hand, are the heirsof the late 9a6i-ino Briones ?9a6i-inoA, co-posed of his nephewsand nieces, and randnephews and randnieces, in representation ofthe deceased siblins of 9a6i-ino&

6 6 6 6

9a6i-ino was -arried to Donata but their union did not produce anychildren& hen 9a6i-ino died on 1 9ay 152, Donata institutedintestate proceedins to settle her husband0s estate with the Cebu CityCourt of First nstance ?CFA, 14th .udicial District, desinated as'pecial (roceedins )o& 28$R& n 8 .uly 152, the CF issuedetters of "d-inistration appointin Donata as the ad-inistratri6 of9a6i-ino0s estate& 'he sub-itted an nventory of 9a6i-ino0sproperties, which included, a-on other thins, the followin parcels ofland 6 6 6&

6 6 6 6/he CF would subse;uently issue an rder, dated 2 ctober 152,awardin ownership of the afore-entioned real properties to Donata&n 2! .une 1

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

29/35


(roceedins )o& 28$R ?the proceedins she instituted to settle9a6i-ino0s intestate estateA, which declared her as 9a6i-ino0s soleheir& n the absence of proof to the contrary, the Court accorded to'pecial (roceedins )o& 28$R the presu-ptions of reularity andvalidity& Reproduced below are the relevant portions15of the Decision

"t the onset, it should be e-phasi>ed that Donata was able to securethe /C/s coverin the real properties belonin to the estate of9a6i-ino by virtue of a CF rder, dated 2 ctober 152& t isundisputed that the said CF rder was issued by the CF in 'pecial(roceedins )o& 28$R, instituted by Donata herself, to settle the

intestate estate of 9a6i-ino& /he petitioners, heirs of Donata, wereunable to present a copy of the CF rder, but this is not surprisinconsiderin that it was issued #5 years prior to the filin by the heirs of9a6i-ino of their Co-plaint in Civil Case )o& C:B$5!4 on # 9arch18!& /he e6istence of such CF rder, nonetheless, cannot bedenied& t was recorded in the (ri-ary :ntry Boo of the Reister ofDeeds on 2! .une 1that she was the nearest survivin relative of the deceased 9a6i-ino'uico Briones at the ti-e of the latter0s death, and pursuant to thepertinent provisions of the new Civil Code of the (hilippines, the Court

hereby declares the aforesaid Donata %& rti> the sole, absolute ande6clusive heir of the estate of the deceased 9a6i-ino 'uico Briones,and she is hereby entitled to inherit all the residue of this estate afterpayin all the obliations thereof, which properties are those containedin the nventory, dated ctober 2, 152&1awphi1.net

Cebu City, .anuary 15, 1

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

30/35


unless contradicted or overco-e by evidence& /his Court finds that theevidence presented by respondents failed to overco-e the ivenpresu-ptions&

"lthouh Donata -ay have alleed before the CF that she was herhusband0s sole heir, it was not established that she did so nowinly,-aliciously and in bad faith, so as for this Court to conclude that sheindeed co--itted fraud& /his Court aain brins to the fore the delayby which respondents filed the present case, when the principal actorsinvolved, particularly, Donata and 9a6i-ino0s siblins, have alreadypassed away and their lips forever sealed as to what truly transpired

between the-& n the other hand, 'pecial (roceedins )o& 28$Rtoo place when all these principal actors were still alive and eachwould have been capable to act to protect his or her own riht to9a6i-ino0s estate& etters of "d-inistration of 9a6i-ino0s estate wereissued in favor of Donata as early as 8 .uly 152, and the CF rder in;uestion was issued only on 15 .anuary 1

ith respect to constructive trusts, the rule is different& /heprescriptibility of an action for reconveyance based on constructivetrust is now settled ?"l>ona vs& Capunitan, $1

" present readin of the Iuion24and 'evilla25cases, invoed byrespondents, -ust be -ade in con+unction with and uided accordinlyby the principles established in the afore$;uoted case& /hus, whilerespondents0 riht to inheritance was transferred or vested upon the-at the ti-e of 9a6i-ino0s death, their enforce-ent of said riht by

appropriate leal action -ay be barred by the prescription of theaction&

(rescription of the action for reconveyance of the disputed propertiesbased on i-plied trust is overned by "rticle 1144 of the )ew CivilCode, which reads

"R/& 1144& /he followin actions -ust be brouht within ten years fro-the ti-e the riht of action accrues3

?1A pon a written contract*

?2A pon an obliation created by law*

?#A pon a +ud-ent&

'ince an i-plied trust is an obliation created by law ?specifically, inthis case, by "rticle 145 of the )ew Civil CodeA, then respondentshad 1< years within which to brin an action for reconveyance of their
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_150175_2007.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_150175_2007.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_150175_2007.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_150175_2007.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_150175_2007.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_150175_2007.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_150175_2007.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_150175_2007.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_150175_2007.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_150175_2007.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_150175_2007.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_150175_2007.html#fnt25

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

31/35


shares in 9a6i-ino0s properties& /he ne6t ;uestion now is whenshould the ten$year prescriptive period be reconed fro-& /he eneralrule is that an action for reconveyance of real property based oni-plied trust prescribes ten years fro- reistration andEor issuance ofthe title to the property,2not only because reistration under the/orrens syste- is a constructive notice of title,2!but also because byreisterin the disputed properties e6clusively in her na-e, Donatahad already une;uivocally repudiated any other clai- to the sa-e&

By virtue of the CF rder, dated 15 .anuary 1ed that Donata lived alon the sa-e street asso-e of the siblins of 9a6i-ino and, yet, she failed to infor- the- ofthe CF rder, dated M15 .anuary 1

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

32/35


G.R. No. 180 O>to;% 10, 2012

E+ILIO A.+. S'NTA? III, (t$t$on%, &s. ISA)EL CO'ANGCOS'NTA?, Rs#ondnt.

R E S O L ' T I O N

(EREZ, J.:

/he now overly proloned, all$too fa-iliar and too$-uch$stretchedi-brolio over the estate of Cristina "uinaldo$'untay has continued&

e issued a Decision in the dispute as in nter Caetera&1

e now finda need to replace the decision&

Before us is a 9otion for Reconsideration filed by respondent sabelCo+uanco$'untay ?respondent sabelA of our Decision2 in %&R& )o&18#

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

33/35


n this -otion, sabel pleads for total affir-ance of the Court of"ppeals0 Decision in favor of her sole ad-inistratorship based on herstatus as a leiti-ate randchild of Cristina, whose estate she sees toad-inister&

sabel contends that the e6plicit provisions of 'ection , Rule !8 of theRules of Court on the order of preference for the issuance of letters ofad-inistration cannot be inored and that "rticle 2 of the Civil Code-ust be followed& sabel further asserts that :-ilio hadde-onstrated adverse interests and disloyalty to the estate, thus, hedoes not deserve to beco-e a co$ad-inistrator thereof&

'pecifically, sabel bewails that3 ?1A :-ilio is an illeiti-aterandchild and therefore, not an heir of the decedent* ?2A corollarythereto, :-ilio , not bein a 7ne6t of in7 of the decedent, has nointerest in the estate to +ustify his appoint-ent as ad-inistrator thereof*?#A :-ilio 0s actuations since his appoint-ent as ad-inistrator by theR/C on )ove-ber 2ed as ne6t of in, thenearest of in in the cateory bein preferred, thus3

n the case at bar, the survivin spouse of the deceased %reorio=entura is .uana Cardona while the ne6t of in are3 9ercedes and%reoria =entura and 9aria and 9iuel =entura& /he 7ne6t of in7 hasbeen defined as those persons who are entitled under the statute ofdistribution to the decedent0s property ?citations o-ittedA& t is enerallysaid that 7the nearest of in, whose interest in the estate is -orepreponderant, is preferred in the choice of ad-inistrator& ]"-on-e-bers of a class the stronest round for preference is the a-ountor preponderance of interest& "s between ne6t of in, the nearest of inis to be preferred&07 ?citations o-ittedA

"s decided by the lower court and sustained by the 'upre-e Court,9ercedes and %reoria =entura are the leiti-ate children of %reorio=entura and his wife, the late (aulina 'i-pliciano& /herefore, as thenearest of in of %reorio =entura, they are entitled to preference overthe illeiti-ate children of %reorio =entura, na-ely3 9aria and 9iuel=entura& ence, under the aforestated preference provided in 'ection of Rule !8, the person or persons to be appointed ad-inistrator are.uana Cardona, as the survivin spouse, or 9ercedes and %reoria=entura as nearest of in, or .uana Cardona and 9ercedes and%reoria =entura in the discretion of the Court, in order to representboth interests&22?:-phasis suppliedA

n Silverio9 Sr. v. Court of Appeals92#we -aintained that the order ofpreference in the appoint-ent of an ad-inistrator depends on theattendant facts and circu-stances& n that case, we affir-ed theleiti-ate child0s appoint-ent as special ad-inistrator, and eventuallyas reular ad-inistrator, of the decedent0s estate as aainst thesurvivin spouse who the lower court found unsuitable& Reiteratin'ioca v& %arcia24as ood law, we pointed out that unsuitableness forappoint-ent as ad-inistrator -ay consist in adverse interest of so-eind or hostility to those i--ediately interested in the estate&

n !alarao v. 3ascual925we see another story with a runnin the-e ofheirs s;uabblin over the estate of a decedent& e found no reason toset aside the probate court0s refusal to appoint as special co$ad-inistrator Dia>, even if he had a de-onstrable interest in the estateof the decedent and represented one of the factions of heirs, becausethe evidence weihed by the probate court pointed to Dia>0s beinre-iss in his previous duty as co$ad-inistrator of the estatein the earlypart of his ad-inistration& 'urveyin the previously discussed cases of9atias, Corona, and =da& de Dayrit, we clarified, thus3

Respondents cannot tae co-fort in the cases of 9atias v& %on>ales,Corona v& Court of "ppeals, and =da& de Dayrit v& Ra-olete, cited in

the assailed Decision& Contrary to their clai-, these cases do notestablish an absolute riht de-andable fro- the probate court toappoint special co$ad-inistrators who would represent the respectiveinterests of s;uabblin heirs& Rather, the cases constitute precedentsfor the authority of the probate court to desinate not +ust one but alsotwo or -ore special co$ad-inistrators for a sinle estate& )ow whetherthe probate court e6ercises such preroative when the heirs arefihtin a-on the-selves is a -atter left entirely to its sounddiscretion&

Further-ore, the cases of 9atias, Corona and =da& de Dayrit hineupon factual circu-stances other than the inco-patible interests of theheirs which are larinly absent fro- the instant case& n 9atias thisCourt ordered the appoint-ent of a special co$ad-inistrator becauseof the applicantWs status as the universal heir and e6ecutri6 desinatedin the will, which we considered to be a 7special interest7 deservin
http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt25http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt8http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt10http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt11http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt12http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt13http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt14http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt15http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt16http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt17http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt18http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt19http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt20http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt21http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt22http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt23http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt24http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_183053_2012.html#fnt25

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

34/35


protection durin the pendency of the appeal& Iuite sinificantly, sincethe lower court in 9atias had already dee-ed it best to appoint -orethan one special ad-inistrator, we found rave abuse of discretion inthe act of the lower court in inorin the applicantWs distinctive status inthe selection of another special ad-inistrator&

n Coronawe ave 7hihest consideration7 to the 7e6ecutri6Ws choice of'pecial "d-inistrator, considerin her own inability to serve and thewide latitude of discretion iven her by the testatri6 in her will,7 for thisCourt to co-pel her appoint-ent as special co$ad-inistrator& t is also-anifest fro- the decision in Corona that the presence of conflictin

interests a-on the heirs therein was not per se the ey factor in thedesination of a second special ad-inistrator as this fact was taeninto account only to disreard or, in the words of Corona, to7overshadow7 the ob+ections to the appoint-ent on rounds of7i-practicality and lac of inship&7

Finally in =da& de Dayrit we +ustified the desination of the wife of thedecedent as special co$ad-inistrator because it was 7our consideredopinion that inas-uch as petitioner$wife owns one$half of the con+ualproperties and that she, too, is a co-pulsory heir of her husband, todeprive her of any hand in the ad-inistration of the estate prior to theprobate of the will would be unfair to her proprietary interests&7 /hespecial status of a survivin spouse in the special ad-inistration of anestate was also e-phasi>ed in Fule v& Court of "ppeals where we heldthat the widow would have -ore interest than any other ne6t of in inthe proper ad-inistration of the entire estate since she possesses notonly the riht of succession over a portion of the e6clusive property of

the decedent but also a share in the con+ual partnership for which theood or bad ad-inistration of the estate -ay affect not +ust the fruitsbut -ore critically the naed ownership thereof& "nd in %abriel v& Courtof "ppeals we reconi>ed the distinctive status of a survivin spouseapplyin as reular ad-inistrator of the deceased spouseWs estatewhen we counseled the probate court that 7there -ust be a very stroncase to +ustify the e6clusion of the widow fro- the ad-inistration&7

Clearly, the selection of a special co$ad-inistrator in 9atias, Coronaand =da& de Dayrit was based upon the independent proprietaryinterests and -oral circu-stances of the appointee that were notnecessarily related to the de-and for representation bein repeatedlyured by respondents&2?:-phasis suppliedA

n Gabriel v. Court of Appeals, we une;uivocally declared the-andatory character of the rule on the order of preference for theissuance of letters of ad-inistration3

:vidently, the foreoin provision of the Rules prescribes the order ofpreference in the issuance of letters of ad-inistration, it cateoricallysees out the survivin spouse, the ne6t of in and the creditors, andre;uires that se;uence to be observed in appointin an ad-inistrator&t would be a rave abuse of discretion for the probate court toi-periously set aside and insouciantly inore that directive without anyvalid and sufficient reason therefor&2!

'ubse;uently, inAngeles v. Angeles=agla0a928we e6pounded on theleal conte-plation of a 7ne6t of in,7 thus3

Finally, it should be noted that on the -atter of appoint-ent ofad-inistrator of the estate of the deceased, the survivin spouse ispreferred over the ne6t of in of the decedent& hen the law speas of7ne6t of in,7 the reference is to those who are entitled, under thestatute of distribution, to the decedentWs property* one whoserelationship is such that he is entitled to share in the estate asdistributed, or, in short, an heir& n resolvin, therefore, the issue of

whether an applicant for letters of ad-inistration is a ne6t of in or anheir of the decedent, the probate court perforce has to deter-ine andpass upon the issue of filiation& " separate action will only result in a-ultiplicity of suits& pon this consideration, the trial court acted withinbounds when it looed into and passed upon the clai-ed relationshipof respondent to the late Francisco "neles&2

Finally, in &0 v. Court of Appeals9#eof, and benefits to, the estate should respondent therein be appointedas co$ad-inistrator& e e-phasi>ed that where the estate is lare or,fro- any cause, an intricate and perple6in one to settle, theappoint-ent of co$ad-inistrators -ay be sanctioned by law&

n our Decision under consideration, we >eroed in on :-ilio 0sde-onstrable interest in the estate and lossed over the order ofpreference set forth in the Rules& e ave weiht to :-ilio 0sde-onstrable interest in Cristina0s estate and without a closer scrutinyof the attendant facts and circu-stances, directed co$ad-inistration

thereof& e are led to a review of such position by the foreoinsurvey of cases&

/he collected teachin is that -ere de-onstration of interest in theestate to be settled does not ipso facto entitle an interested person toco$ad-inistration thereof& )either does s;uabblin a-on the heirsnor adverse interests necessitate the discountin of the order ofpreference set forth in 'ection , Rule !8& ndeed, in the appoint-entof ad-inistrator of the estate of a deceased person, the principalconsideration reconed with is the interest in said estate of the one tobe appointed as ad-inistrator%iven sabel0s unassailable interest inthe estate as one of the decedent0s leiti-ate randchildren andundoubted nearest 7ne6t of in,7 the appoint-ent of :-ilio as co$ad-inistrator of the sa-e estate, cannot be a de-andable riht& t is a

-atter left entirely to the sound discretion of the Court#2and dependson the facts and the attendant circu-stances of the case#

/hus, we proceed to scrutini>e the attendant facts and circu-stancesof this case even as we reiterate sabel0s and her siblin0s apparentreater interest in the estate of Cristina&

/hese considerations do not warrant the settin aside of the order ofpreference -apped out in 'ection , Rule !8 of the Rules of Court&/hey co-pel that a choice be -ade of one over the other&

1& /he bitter estrane-ent and lon$standin ani-osity between

sabel, on the one hand, and :-ilio , on the other, traced bac fro-the ti-e their paternal randparents were alive, which can becharacteri>ed as adverse interest of so-e ind by, or hostility of, :-il io to sabel who is i--ediately interested in the estate*

2& Corollary thereto, the see-in i-possibility of sabel and :-ilio worin har-oniously as co$ad-inistrators -ay result in pre+udice tothe decedent0s estate, ulti-ately delayin settle-ent thereof* and

#& :-ilio , for all his clai-s of nowlede in the -anae-ent ofCristina0s estate, has not looed after the estate0s welfare and hasacted to the da-ae and pre+udice thereof&

Contrary to the assu-ption -ade in the Decision that :-ilio 0sde-onstrable interest in the estate -aes hi- a suitable co$ad-inistrator thereof, the evidence reveals that :-ilio has turnedout to be an unsuitable ad-inistrator of the estate& Respondent sabelpoints out that after :-ilio 0s appoint-ent as ad-inistrator of the

sub+ect estate in 2

7/24/2019 Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

35/35


two occasions of Federico0s e6clusion of Cristina0s other co-pulsoryheirs, herein sabel and her siblins, fro- the list of heirs&

"s ad-inistrator, :-ilio enters into the office, posts a bond ande6ecutes an oath to faithfully dischare the duties of settlin thedecedent0s estate with the end in view of distribution to the heirs, if any&/his he failed to do& /he foreoin circu-stances of :-ilio 0so-ission and inaction beco-e even -ore sinificant and speavolu-e of his unsuitability as ad-inistrator as it de-onstrates hisinterest adverse to those i--ediately interested in the estate of thedecedent, Cristina&

n this case, palpable fro- the evidence on record, the pleadins, andthe protracted litiation, is the inescapable fact that :-ilio andrespondent sabel have a deep aversion for each other&1awpBBi1/oour -ind, it beco-es hihly i-practical, nay, i-probable, for the two towor as co$ad-inistrators of their rand-other0s estate& /healleations of :-ilio , the testi-ony of Federico and the otherwitnesses for Federico and :-ilio that sabel and her siblins wereestraned fro- their randparents further drive ho-e the point that:-ilio bears hostility towards sabel& 9ore i-portantly, it appearsdetri-ental to the decedent0s estate to appoint a co$ad-inistrator?:-ilio A who has shown an adverse interest of so-e ind or hostilityto those, such as herein respondent sabel, i--ediately interested inthe said estate&

Bearin in -ind that the issuance of letters of ad-inistration is si-ply apreli-inary order to facilitate the settle-ent of a decedent0s estate, wehere point out that :-ilio is not without re-edies to protect his

interests in the estate of the decedent& n ilado v& Court of"ppeals,#we -apped out as a-on the a llowable participation of 7anyinterested persons7 or 7any persons interested in the estate7 in eithertestate or intestate proceedins3

6 6 6 6

4& 'ection 4>le-ent, or conveyance of any asset of the decedent, or ofevidence of the decedent0s title or interest therein*7

5& 'ection 1

Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015

Documents

Transcript of Rem2 Cases Rule 72-91 2015