Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 206 views

    Rivera Vs Ramirez

    Uploaded by

    Rea Romero
    1) Eleuterio filed a petition for letters of administration to administer the estate of Rosita Rivera, who died without a will. Eleuterio claimed to be Rosita's nephew. 2) Robert Ramirez, who had been managing the Sta. Teresita General Hospital owned by Rosita and her husband, opposed the petition. Robert claimed he and his siblings were adopted children of Rosita's husband. 3) The Court of Appeals ruled Eleuterio did not have standing to request documents from Robert or settle Rosita's estate, as she had an adopted child who would be her heir. 4) The Supreme Court held that as the administrator of Rosita's estate, Ele

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rivera Vs Ramirez

    Uploaded by

    Rea Romero
    206 views2 pages
    1) Eleuterio filed a petition for letters of administration to administer the estate of Rosita Rivera, who died without a will. Eleuterio claimed to be Rosita's nephew. 2) Robert Ramirez, who had been managing the Sta. Teresita General Hospital owned by Rosita and her husband, opposed the petition. Robert claimed he and his siblings were adopted children of Rosita's husband. 3) The Court of Appeals ruled Eleuterio did not have standing to request documents from Robert or settle Rosita's estate, as she had an adopted child who would be her heir. 4) The Supreme Court held that as the administrator of Rosita's estate, Ele

    Original Description:

    law

    Original Title

    Rivera vs Ramirez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Eleuterio filed a petition for letters of administration to administer the estate of Rosita Rivera, who died without a will. Eleuterio claimed to be Rosita's nephew. 2) Robert Ramirez, who had been managing the Sta. Teresita General Hospital owned by Rosita and her husband, opposed the petition. Robert claimed he and his siblings were adopted children of Rosita's husband. 3) The Court of Appeals ruled Eleuterio did not have standing to request documents from Robert or settle Rosita's estate, as she had an adopted child who would be her heir. 4) The Supreme Court held that as the administrator of Rosita's estate, Ele

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    206 views2 pages

    Rivera Vs Ramirez

    Uploaded by

    Rea Romero
    1) Eleuterio filed a petition for letters of administration to administer the estate of Rosita Rivera, who died without a will. Eleuterio claimed to be Rosita's nephew. 2) Robert Ramirez, who had been managing the Sta. Teresita General Hospital owned by Rosita and her husband, opposed the petition. Robert claimed he and his siblings were adopted children of Rosita's husband. 3) The Court of Appeals ruled Eleuterio did not have standing to request documents from Robert or settle Rosita's estate, as she had an adopted child who would be her heir. 4) The Supreme Court held that as the administrator of Rosita's estate, Ele

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Rivera vs Ramirez

    Held:

    Facts: The spouses Adolfo Ramirez (Adolfo) and Rosita Rivera (Rosita) owned the
    Sta. Teresita General Hospital and other properties. Rosita died in September 1990,
    followed by her husband Adolfo. In 1995 petitioner Eleuterio P. Rivera (Eleuterio) filed As for the right of the administrator of Rosita’s estate to the production and
    a petition for issuance of letters of administration with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) examination of the specified documents believed to be in Robert’s
    covering the estate of Rosita, who allegedly died without a will and with no direct possession, Section 6, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court provides that these can
    ascendants or descendants.Eleuterio claimed that he was Rosita’s nephew. Eleuterio be allowed based on the administrator’s belief that the person named in the
    submitted to the intestate court a list of the names of the decedent’s other nephews request for subpoena has documents in his possession that tend to show
    and nieces all of whom expressed conformity to Eleuterio’s appointment as the decedent’s right to real or personal property. Thus:
    administrator of her estate.
    Section 6. Proceedings when property concealed, embezzled, or
    fraudulently conveyed. – If an executor or administrator, heir, legatee,
    In 1995 the RTC issued letters of administration appointing Eleuterio as Rosita’s creditor, or other individual interested in the estate of the deceased,
    estate administrator.In 1996 he filed in his capacity as administrator a motion with the complains to the court having jurisdiction of the estate that a person is
    court to compel the examination and production of documents relating to properties suspected of having concealed, embezzled, or conveyed away any of the
    believed to be a part of her estate, foremost of which was the Sta. Teresita General money, goods or chattels of the deceased, or that such person has in his
    Hospital that respondent Robert Ramirez (Robert) had been managing.Robert claims, possession or has knowledge of any deed, conveyance, bond, contract or
    together with Raymond Ramirez (Raymond) and Lydia Ramirez (Lydia), that they other writing which contains evidence of or tends to disclose the right, title,
    were children of Adolfo by another woman. Robert opposed the issuance of the interest, or claim of the deceased to real or personal estate, or the last will
    subpoena. and testament of the deceased, the Court may cite such suspected person
    to appear before it and may examine him on oath on the matter of such
    complaint; and if the person so cited refuses to appear, or to answer on such
    Subsequently, Robert filed a special civil action of certiorari before the Court of examination or such interrogatories as are put to him, the court may punish
    Appeals (CA), imputing grave abuse of discretion by the RTC for allowing the him for contempt, and may commit him to prison until he submits to the order
    production and examination of the subject documents and for not inhibiting Atty. of the court. The interrogatories put to any such person, and his answers
    Pacheo from the case. Essentially, the CA ruled that Eleuterio and Rosita’s other thereto, shall be in writing and shall be filed in the clerk’s office. (Emphasis
    collateral relatives were not her heirs since she had an adopted child in Raymond and supplied)
    that, consequently, Eleuterio, et al. had no standing to request production of the
    hospital’s documents or to institute the petition for the settlement of her estate. The production and examination is nothing to be afraid of since the intestate
    court has no authority to decide who the decedent’s heirs are in connection
    with such incident which is confined to the examination of documents which
    may aid the administrator in determining properties believed to belong to the
    Issue: Whether or not Eleuterio had a legal standing to subpoena the documents in
    decedent’s estate. What is more, that court has no authority to decide the
    Robert’s possession? (Yes)
    question of whether certain properties belong to the estate or to the person
    sought to be examined.

    In fact, if after the examination the court has good reason to believe that the person
    examined is in possession of properties that belong to the deceased, the
    administrator cannot detain the property. He has to file an ordinary action for recovery
    of the properties.The purpose of the production and examination of documents is to
    elicit information or secure evidence from persons suspected of having possession of,
    or knowledge of properties suspected of belonging to the estate of the deceased. The
    procedure is inquisitorial in nature, designed as an economical and efficient mode of
    discovering properties of the estate.

    You might also like