Santero v. Cfi of Cavite Digest

SANTERO v.
CFI OF CAVITE
G.R. 61700-03
Sept. 14, 1987
Facts:
1. Princesita Santos-Morales, Frederico Santero and Willie Santero (Petitioners) are children of the late Pablo
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Santero with Felixberta Pacursa while Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina and Miguel Santero (Respondents) are 4
of the 7 children by Pablo Santero with Anselma Diaz. Both sets of children are the natural children of the
late Pablo since neither of their mothers was married to their father. Pablo was the only legitimate son of
Pascual Santero and Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
The issue in this case springs from the Motion for Allowance filed by Respondents through their guardian,
Anselma in 1981 wherein the ground cited was for support which included educational expenses, clothing
and medical necessities, which was granted. Again, Respondents filed a Motion for Allowance in 1982, citing
the same grounds. Petitioners opposed and contended that the wards for whom allowance is sought are no
longer schooling and have attained majority age so that they are no longer under guardianship. They
likewise allege that the administrator does not have sufficient funds to cover the said allowance because
whatever funds are in the hands of the administrator, they constitute funds held in trust for the benefit of
whoever will be adjudged as owners of the Kawit property from which said administrator derives the only
income of the intestate estate of Pablo.
In the Reply to the Opposition filed by Anselma, she admitted that some of her children are of age and not
enrolled for the first semester due to lack of funds but will be enrolled as soon as they are given the
requested allowances. She cited Art. 290 of the Civil Code and Sec. 3 of Rule 83 of the Rules of Court.
CFI granted the allowance to the Respondents (2k each).
While the case was pending in the SC, Respondents filed another Motion for Allowance to include Juanita,
Estelita and Pedro Santero as children of Pablo with Anselma praying that an order be granted directing the
administrator to deliver 6k to each of the 7 children as their allowance. CFI granted again but Petitioners
asked the CFI to reconsider. An Amended Order was issued directing Anselma to submit her clarification or
explanation as to the additional 3 children included. Anselma stated that in her previous motions, only the
last 4 minor children were included and her first 3 who were then of age should have been included since all
her children have the right to receive allowance as advance payment of their shares in the inheritance of
Pablo under Art. 188 of the NCC.
CFI issued another Order directing the administrator to get back the allowance of the 3 additional recipients
or children of Anselma.
Petitioners argue that Respondents are not entitled to any allowance since they have already attained
majority, 2 are gainfully employed and 1 is married as provided for under Sec. 3 Rule 83, of the ROC.
Petitioners also allege that there was misrepresentation on the part of the guardian in asking for allowance
for tuition fees, book and other school materials and other miscellaneous expenses for school term 1982-83
because these wards have already attained majority age so that they are no longer under guardianship
Issue:
1. W/N CFI acted with abuse of discretion in granting the allowance to
Respondents despite the fact that all of them are not minors and all are gainfully employed with the
exception of Miguel?
Held:
1. The controlling provision of law is not Rule

83, Sec. 3 but Arts. 290 and 188 of the NCC. The fact that Respondents are of age, gainfully employed, or
married is of no moment and should not be regarded as the determining factor of their right to allowance
under Art. 188. While the ROC limit the allowances to the widow and minor or incapacitated children of the
deceased, the NCC gives the surviving spouse and his/her children without distinction. Hence, Respondents
are entitled to allowances as advances from their shares in the inheritance from their father Pablo. Since the
provisions of the NCC, a substantive law, gives the surviving spouse and to the children the right to receive
support during the liquidation of the estate of the deceased, such right cannot be impaired by Rule 83 which
is a procedural rule. (Spouse however must be legitimate spouse)
2. It is not true that the Motion for Allowance
was granted without hearing. It contains a Notice of Hearing addressed to the lawyers for Petitioners. It was
duly received because lawyer filed an Opposition.

Santero v. Cfi of Cavite Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santero v. Cfi of Cavite Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santero v. Cfi of Cavite Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SANTERO v.

1. The controlling provision of law is not Rule

You might also like