Special Proceedings 3d

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ATTY.
CARINGAL 3D 2020
CASE NAME
COPY THE FORMAT
FACTS:
1. Blah CTRL+F YOUR CASE TITLE, IT’S ALREADY DISTRIBUTED.
DEADLINE: WEDNESDAY (FEB. 20, 2019), 12 NOON
2. Blah
a. Sub Blah
3. RTC ruled
RULE 78 (LETTERS TESTAMENTARY AND OF ADMINISTRATION, WHEN AND
4. CA ruled
TO WHOM ISSUED)
1. NGO THE HUA V. CHUNG KIAT HUA - REMOLLO, D.
ISSUES:
2. MALOLES II V. PHILLIPS (will copy/paste the digest from before)
1. WoN Blah is blah? YES/NO
3. LIM V. DIAZ-MILLARES - MAGISTRADO
4. BALUYUT V. CRUZ-PANO - HILADO
RULING + RATIO:
5. TAN V. DEL ROSARIO - SANTOS, JR.
1. Blah
6. ANGELES V. MAGLAYA - BAUTISTA
a. Sub Blah
7. VANCIL V. BELMES - ALCAZAR
2. Concept
8. GABRIEL V. CA - ALCANTARA
a. Explain explain
9. DE GUZMAN V. LIMCOLIOC - BALONAN
10. TORRES V. SICAT - ROMERO
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION? REVERSED?
11. SUNTAY III V. SUNTAY (2010) (work together with #12 re: facts) -
FERNANDO
DOCTRINE: etc etc etc
12. SUNTAY III V. SUNTAY (2012) (work together with #11 re: facts) -
DESLATE
RULE 79 (OPPOSING ISSUANCE OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY; PETITION

AND CONTEST FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION
1. DURAN V. DURAN - OCAMPO
2. TAYAG V. TAYAG-GALLOR - TAYLO
3. GUTIERREZ DEL CAMPO V. CALDERON - PELONGCO
4. GARCIA VDA. DE CHUA V. CA - SO
5. DE GUZMAN V. ANGELES - PEREZ
1
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ATTY. CARINGAL 3D 2020
NGO THE HUA V. CHUNG KIAT HUA Code). The appellant not having any interest in Chung Liu's estate, either as
FACTS: heir or creditor, he cannot be appointed as co-administrator of the estate.
1. Ngo The Hua (Ngo), claiming to be the surviving spouse of the deceased
Chung Liu, filed a petition to be appointed administratrix of the estate of the
deceased.
2. Her petition was opposed by Chung Kiat Hua (Hua), Lily Chung Cho,
Bonifacio Chung Sio Pek and Chung Ka Bio, all claiming to be children of
the deceased Chung Liu by his first wife, Tan Hua on the ground that Ngo
The Hua is morally and physically unfit to execute the duties of the trust as
administratrix, and that she and the deceased have secured an absolute
divorce in Taiwan.
3. They prayed that Chung Kiat Hua be appointed administrator instead being
the eldest.
4. Chung Kiat Kang (Kang), claiming to be a nephew of the deceased, filed his
opposition to the appointment of either Ngo or Hua on the ground that to be
appointed they must first prove their respective relationship to the deceased
Chung Li and prayed that he be appointed administrator.
5. The lower court found that Ngo and the deceased were validly divorced and
that Hua and siblings are children of the deceased. So it issued the order
appointing Hua as administrator of the estate of Chung Liu.
6. Both the petitioner and Kang appealed however Ngo filed a petition to
withdraw her appeal stating that she had entered into an amicable
settlement with Hua.
7. Kang contends declaration of heirs shall only take place after all debts,
expenses and taxes have been paid" in accordance with Sec. 1, Rule 91
(now Rule 90) of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the court can advance the determination the relationship of the
parties to be able to appoint an administrator with the order of preference
2. Whether Chung Kiat Kang has the right to intervene in an administration
proceeding and be appointed administrator
RATIO:
1. Yes. Nowhere from Sec. 1, Rule 91 (now Rule 90) may it be inferred that the
court cannot make a declaration of heirs prior to the satisfaction of these
obligations. It is clear from the facts of this case that is was deemed
necessary by the lower court to determine the relationship of the parties to
be able to appoint an administrator in accordance with the order preference
established in Section 5, Rule 79 (now Sec. 6, Rule 78) of the Rules of
Court. Said section provides that letters of administration shall be granted to
the surviving spouse the next of kin, or to any principal creditor, in this order.
2. No. It is well-settled that for a person to be able to intervene in an
administration proceeding concerning the estate of a deceased, it is
necessary for him to have interest in such estate. Appellant Chung Kiat
Kang does not claim to be a creditor of Chung Liu's estate. Neither is he an
heir in accordance with the Civil Code of the Republic of China, the law that
applies in this case, Chung Liu being a Chinese citizen (Art. 16, New Civil
2
MALOLES II V. PHILLIPS over the subject matter, because such legal provision is contained in a law of
procedure dealing merely with procedural matters.
FACTS: 3. Although Rule 73, Sec 1 applies insofar as the venue of the petition for
1. Dr. de Santos, Filipino and a resident of Makati City, filed a petition for probate of the will of Dr de Santos is concerned, it does not bar other
probate of his will in the RTC of Makati Branch 61 alleging that: branches of the same court from taking cognizance of the settlement of the
a. He had no compulsory heirs estate of the testator after his death. The jurisdiction is vested in the court,
b. His sole legatee and devisee is the Arturo de Santos Foundation not in the judges and when a case is filed in one branch, jurisdiction over the
c. The value of his properties in his will is not less than P2M case does not attach to the branch or judge alone, to the exclusion of the
d. Copies of his will were in the custody of his executrix Pacita Phillips other branches. Trial may be held or proceedings continue by and before
2. The RTC granted the petition and allowed the will. another branch or judge. Hence, Branch 65 had jurisdiction.
3. After de Santos died, Maloles filed a motion for intervention claiming that he
is the only child of de Santos’ sister Alicia and was the sole full-blooded DISPOSITION:
nephew and nearest kin of Dr de Santos and a creditor of the latter. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the decisions of the Court of Appeals are
4. The court required Maloles to file a memorandum of authorities in support of hereby AFFIRMED.
his claim that Branch 61 still had jurisdiction to allow his intervention.
5. Pacita, who withdrew her motion for the issuance of letters testamentary in DOCTRINE:
Branch 61, refiled a petition for the same purpose with Branch 65 to which When a petition for the probate of a will has been filed and decided upon during the
the court appointed her as special administrator of the estate. lifetime of the testator, the petition for the settlement of the estate of the testator may
6. Maloles sought to intervene in the case in Branch 65 and asked to set aside be filed after the death of the testator in a different branch of the court.
the appointment and alleged that the case in Branch 61 is still pending.
7. Branch 65 ordered the transfer of the case to Branch 61. The latter then
denied the motion for intervention of Maloles. CA affirmed.
8. Branch 61 issued an order returning the records of the case from Branch 65
to the latter on the ground that there was a pending case involving the
Estate of Arturo de Santos.
9. Branch 65 returned the case to Branch 61 considering that the probate
proceedings were commenced in Branch 61, but recalled his decision and
took the case to expedite the proceedings.
10. Branch 65 granted Maloles’ motion for intervention. CA reversed.
ISSUE:
WON Branch 65 acquired jurisdiction over the petition for issuance of letters
testamentary.
HELD:
1. YES. The authority of the court is limited to ascertaining the extrinsic validity
of the will in probate of wills cases. Usually, after approving and allowing the
will, the court proceeds to issue letters testamentary and settle the estate of
the testator, but this presumes that the probate proceeding is instituted after
the death of the testator. Hence, after the allowance of the will of de Santos,
Branch 61 had nothing else to do except to issue a certificate of allowance of
the will under Rule 73, 12 of the ROC.
2. Maloles wrongly used Rule 73, 1 in defending the decision allowing him to
intervene since such provision provides for the venue of actions for the
settlement of the estate deceased persons. The clause “so far as it depends
on the place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate” is
a matter of venue. It could not have been intended to define the jurisdiction
3
LIM V. DIAZ-MILLARES
DISPOSITION: IN VIEW HEREOF, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with
FACTS: costs against the petitioner-appellant.
1. Cirilo Lim, claiming to be a nephew of the late Jose Millarez who died
intestate, filed with the CFI of Negros Occidental a petition for his
DOCTRINE: In this jurisdiction, one is considered to be unsuitable for appointment as
appointment as judicial administrator of the estate of the deceased.
administrator when he has adverse interest of some kind or hostility to those
2. Basilisa Diaz-Millarez, claiming to be a widow of the deceased, filed an
immediately interested in the estate. The determination of a person’s suitability for the
opposition on 2 grounds: (1) that Cirilo had an adverse interest in the estate;
office of judicial administrator rests, to a great extent, in the sound judgment of the
and (2) that the properties of the estate are the subject matter of a litigation
court exercising the power of appointment and said judgment is not to be interfered
between her (as plaintiff) and Cirilo (as defendant) in a civil case.
with on appeal unless the said court is clearly in error.
3. During the hearing, both parties manifested the existence of a litigation
between them over the properties of the estate.
a. In the said civil case, the CFI already decided in favor of Cirilo and
the case is now pending appeal in the CA.
b. It appears that Basilisa sought to recover from Cirilo ½ of the total
amount of P22,000 allegedly delivered to him (Cirilo) by her
(Basilisa) and the deceased (Jose) on various occasions and to
declare her (Basilisa) as the owner of ½ of the profits and gains
derived therefrom, on the ground that she and Jose lived as
husband and wife for about 23 years.
c. Cirilo answered that the money he received from Jose on various
occasions was handed to one Tan Suaco for investment in the
tobacco business.
d. The CA reversed the CFI decision and declared Basilisa to be
entitled to ½ of the estate of the late Jose.
4. From what appears above, the claim which Basilisa has against Cirilo in the
civil case supposed to be now again pending in the trial court, is based on
her declared right to ½ of the estate of the deceased.
5. RTC dismissed Cirilo’s petition for appointment as judicial administrator.
6. On appeal, the CA certified the appeal to the SC for the reason that there is
no question of fact involved.
ISSUES:
1. WoN Cirilo is suitable to be an administrator of the estate? NO
RULING + RATIO:
1. It cannot, therefore, be denied that Cirilo, as a relative of the deceased has
some interest adverse to that of Basilisa.
2. Shown to have some liabilities to Basilisa and to the estate as a whole, Cirilo
cannot compatibly perform the duties of an administrator.
3. In this jurisdiction, one is considered to be unsuitable for appointment as
administrator when he has adverse interest of some kind or hostility to those
immediately interested in the estate.
4. The determination of a person’s suitability for the office of judicial
administrator rests, to a great extent, in the sound judgment of the court
exercising the power of appointment and said judgment is not to be
interfered with on appeal unless the said court is clearly in error.
4
BALUYUT V. CRUZ-PANO entitle him to the issuance of letters testamentary. A hearing has to be held
in order to ascertain his fitness to act as executor. He might have been fit to
FACTS: act as executor when the will was executed but supervening circumstances
1. Sotero Baluyut died and left an estate of not less than P2M. might have rendered him unfit for that position. A hearing is necessary in
2. Alfredo, his nephew, filed a verified petition for letters of administration order to determine the suitability of the person to be appointed administrator
alleging that the deceased was survived by his widow who was mentally by him the opportunity to prove his qualifications and affording oppositors a
incapable of acting as administratrix. He inferred that Sotero had a will. chance to contest the petition.
3. Alfredo was appointed special administrator. 3. In this case, the probate court briefly and perfunctorily interrogated Mrs
4. Mrs. Baluyut filed an opposition alleging that she was unaware that Sotero Baluyut in order to satisfy itself on her mental capacity. It did not give Alfredo
executed a will. She claimed that the allegation of her mental incapacity was a chance to contest her qualifications. Whether Sotero died testate or
libelous and she prayed to be named administratrix. intestate, it is imperative in the interest of the orderly administration of justice
5. CFI cancelled Alfredo’s appointment and determined that Mrs Baluyut was that a hearing be held to determine Mrs Baluyut’s fitness to act as executrix
mentally qualified. or administratrix. Persons questioning her capacity should be given an
6. CFI granted the MR and appointed Alfredo and Espino as special adequate opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.
administrator.
7. Mrs Baluyut prayed that she be appointed administratrix alleging that Alfredo DISPOSITION:
had no more interest in Sotero’s estate since he was only a collateral relative WHEREFORE, the lower court's order of November 27, 1975 appointing Mrs. Baluyut
and was excluded by Espino, an acknowledged natural child of Sotero. as administratrix is set aside. The letters of administration granted to her are
8. Alfredo alleged that Espino was not a natural child of Sotero and that Mrs cancelled. The probate court is directed to conduct further proceedings in
Baluyut was declared incompetent by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations consonance with the guidelines delineated in this decision. Costs against respondent
Court in a Special Proceeding for the guardianship of Mrs Baluyut instituted Mrs. Baluyut.
by her sisters. SO ORDERED
9. The probate court terminated the appointment of Alfredo and Espino and
appointed Mrs Baluyut having preferential right to be appointed as
administratrix.
10. Alfredo filed a certiorari to set aside the order appointing Mrs Baluyut.
11. Mrs Baluyut alleged that Alfredo instituted the administration proceeding
after he failed to get a check for P500k from the estate and that he grossly
misrepresented that she was mentally incompetent and that the special
proceeding on her guardianship was done in a blitzkrieg manner.
12. Mrs Baluyut claimed that the probate court and not the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court should decide on her competency to act as
administratrix.
13. Alfredo claimed that Sotero’s will bequeathed ½ of his share in conjugal
assets and ¼ of the residue of the estate to Mrs Baluyut, and the ¾ to the
collateral relatives; that Mrs Baluyut was designated as executrix; and
Espino was not mentioned in the will.
ISSUE:
WON the lower court rightfully appointed Mrs Baluyut as Administratrix.
HELD:
1. NO. While Mrs Baluyut, as surviving spouse, enjoys preference in the
granting of letters of administration, it does not follow that she should be
named administratrix without conducting a full-dress hearing on her
competency to discharge that trust.
2. Even the directive in the will designating a certain person should act as
executor is not binding on the probate court and does not automatically
5
TAN V. DEL ROSARIO 4. Under the provisions of the law, therefore, the judicial administrator is
FACTS: the legal representative not only of the testate or intestate estate, but
also of the creditors, and heirs and legatees, inasmuch as he
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Prudencia Chua Tan and others, from the represents their interest in the estate of the deceased.
judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila finally dismissing their 5. Benedicta Santa Juana, as administratrix of the intestate estate of the late
complaint and absolving the defendant, Lucia del Rosario, as administratrix Chua Piaco, was the legal representative not only of said estate but
of the intestate estate of China Toco, with costs against said appellants. also of its creditors and heirs. In view of this relation of agent and
2. In support of said appeal Prudencia assigned the following errors: principal between her and the plaintiffs in the present case, the decision
a. In sustaining the defendant appellee's(del rosario) defense of rendered against Benedicta Santa Juana, as such administratrix, in the
res judicata, on the ground that this case has already been former case is conclusive and binding upon said plaintiffs in the
decided by the Supreme Court in civil case G. R. No. 26258, No. present case, in accordance with section 306 of the Code of Civil Procedure
25797 of the CFI Manila, instituted by Benedicta Santa Juana, as cited above.
administratrix of the intestate estate of Chua Piaco against 6. while there is no real identity between the plaintiff in the forme civil case, and
Lucia del Rosario, also as administratrix of the intestate estate the plaintiffs in the present case still there exists between them the relation
of Chua Toco. of legal representation by virtue of which the decision rendered in such case
b. In holding that the P20,000 belonged to Chua Toco exclusively against the former binds the latter. With respect to the parties defendant,
c. That the sum of P38,559.30 which is onehalf of the P77,118.60 that there is no question that the defendant in the first case is the same in the
Chua Toco had used to purchase a piece of land on Antonio Rivera present and appears in the same capacity.
Street 7. IDENTITY OF SUBJECT MATTER: In former case the petition was for the
d. In finally dismissing the complaint rendering of an accounting of certain funds while present case the petition is
e. in denying the motion for a new trial for the partition of those same funds and their fruits between the heirs of
3. Hence this Petition both deceased.Therefore subject matter of the litigation is the same.
8. IDENTITY OF CAUSE OF ACTION:in the former case the late Chua Toco,
ISSUE: W/N there is res judicata? certain funds and that the judicial administratrix of the latter's intestate estate
had refused to render an accounting of said funds and the fruits thereof. In
RATIO: the present case the plaintiffs include the same allegation of trust, and the
1. IDENTITY OF PARTIES: In civil case No. 25797 the plaintiff was Benedicta defendant makes the same denial, except that instead of a rendition of
Santa Juana, as judicial administratrix of the intestate estate of Chua Piaco, accounts, the partition of said funds and the product thereof is asked.
and the defendant was Lucia del Rosario, as administratrix of the intestate 9. IDENTITY OF ISSUE: Even if different reliefs are sought in each case only
estate of Chua Toco. In the present case the plaintiffs are the presumptive one issue was raised before the two cases and that is whether Chua Piaco
heirs of the late Chua Piaco and the defendant is Lucia del Rosario, as or Chua Toco was the owner of said funds.that the aforesaid funds and the
administratrix of the intestate estate of Chua Toco. products thereof belonged to the late Chua Piaco, who had delivered the
2. It is the duty of the administrator of the testate or intestate estate of a principal to his adopted son, Chua Toco, by way of trust.
deceased to present an inventory of the real estate and all goods, chattels, 10. All the elements of res judicata are present therefore the decision in the
rights, and credits of the deceased which have come into his possession or former civil case is conclusive against the present case.
knowledge, in accordance with the provisions of section 668 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, and to manage them according to section 643 of the same DISPOSITION: Wherefore, finding no error in the judgment appealed from, it is
Code; and in order that he may have in his power and under his custody all hereby affirmed in toto, with costs against the appellants. So ordered
such property, section 702 of the aforesaid Code authorizes him to bring
such actions for the purpose as he may deem necessary. DOCTRINE: In Bold
3. Section 642 in providing for the appointment of an administrator where there
is no will or the will does not name an executor, seeks to protect not only the
estate of the deceased but also the rights of the creditors in order that they
may be able to collect their credits, and of the heirs and legatees in order
that they may receive the portion of the inheritance or legacy appertaining to
them after all the debts and expenses chargeable against the
deceased's estate have been paid.
6
RATIO
ANGELES V. MAGLAYA
FACTS 1. We are unable to lend concurrence to the appellate court’s conclusion on the
1. Respondent filed a petition for letters of administration and her appointment as legitimate status of respondent, or, to be precise, on her legitimate filiation to the
administratrix of the intestate estate of Francisco M. Angeles (Francisco) before decedent. A legitimate child is a product of, and, therefore, implies a valid and
the RTC of Caloocan CIty. In the petition, respondent alleged, among other lawful marriage. Remove the element of lawful union and there is strictly no
things, the following: legitimate filiation between parents and child.
a. That Francisco, a resident of 71 B. Serrano St., Grace Park, 2. A party in whose favor the legal presumption exists may rely on and invoke
Caloocan, died intestate on January 21, 1998 in the City of Manila, such legal presumption to establish a fact in issue. He need not introduce
leaving behind four (4) parcels of land and a building, among other evidence to prove that fact. For, a presumption is prima facie proof of the fact
valuable properties; presumed. However, it cannot be over-emphasized, that while a fact thus prima
b. That there is a need to appoint an administrator of Francisco’s facie established by legal presumption shall, unless overthrown, stand as
estate; proved, the presumption of legitimacy under Article 164 of the Family Code may
c. That she (respondent) is the sole legitimate child of the deceased be availed only upon convincing proof of the factual basis therefor, i.e., that the
and Genoveva Mercado, and, together with petitioner, Belen S. childs parents were legally married and that his/her conception or birth occurred
Angeles, decedents wife by his second marriage, are the surviving during the subsistence of that marriage. Else, the presumption of law that a
heirs of the decedent; and child is legitimate does not arise.
d. That she has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications 3. In the case at bench, the CA, in its decision under review, did not categorically
required of an administrator. state from what facts established during the trial was the presumption of
2. Petitioner opposed the basic petition and prayed that she, instead of respondents supposed legitimacy arose. But even if perhaps it wanted to, it
respondent, be made the administratrix of Francisco’s estate. In support of her could not have possibly done so. For, save for respondent’s gratuitous assertion
opposition and plea, petitioner alleged having married Francisco before the and an entry in her certificate of birth, there is absolutely no proof of the
Municipal Court of Rizal, a union which was ratified 2 months later in religious decedent’s marriage to respondent’s mother, Genoveva Mercado.
rites at the Our Lady of Grace Parish in Caloocan City, and that Francisco 4. Petitioner also contends, citing jurisprudence, that “[I]t was error for the Court of
represented in their marriage contract that he was single at that time. Petitioner Appeals to have ruled . . . that [respondents] Birth Certificate indubitably
also averred that respondent could not be the daughter of Francisco for, establishes that she is the legitimate daughter of Francisco and Genoveva who
although she was recorded as Francisco’s legitimate daughter, the are legally married.”
corresponding birth certificate was not signed by him. Pressing on, petitioner 5. The contention commends itself for concurrence. The reason is as simple as it
further alleged that respondent, despite her claim of being the legitimate child of is elementary: the Birth Certificate presented was not signed by Francisco
Francisco and Genoveva Mercado, has not presented the marriage contract against whom legitimate filiation is asserted. Not even by Genoveva. It was
between her supposed parents or produced any acceptable document to prove signed by the attending physician who certified to having attended the birth of a
such union. Petitioner thus urged that she, being the surviving spouse of child. Such certificate, albeit considered a public record of a private document
Francisco, be declared as possessed of the superior right to the administration under the Rules of Court, is evidence only of the fact which gave rise to its
of his estate. execution: the fact of birth of a child. Jurisprudence teaches that a birth
3. After respondent rested her case following her formal offer of exhibits, petitioner certificate, to be considered as validating proof of paternity and as an instrument
filed a Motion to Dismiss. In it, she prayed for the dismissal of the petition for of recognition, must be signed by the father and mother jointly, or by the mother
letters of administration on the ground that the petition failed to state or prove a alone if the father refuses.
cause of action, it being her stated position that “[P]etitioner [Corzaon], by her 6. Finally, it should be noted that on the matter of appointment of administrator of
evidence, failed to establish her filiation vis--vis the decedent, i.e., that she is in the estate of the deceased, the surviving spouse is preferred over the next of
fact a legitimate child of Francisco M. Angeles.” kin of the decedent. When the law speaks of next of kin, the reference is to
4. The RTC dismissed the case finding that respondent failed to prove her filiation those who are entitled, under the statute of distribution, to the decedent’s
as the legitimate child of Francisco. The CA reversed and set aside the decision property; one whose relationship is such that he is entitled to share in the estate
of the RTC. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. as distributed, or, in short, an heir. In resolving, therefore, the issue of whether
an applicant for letters of administration is a next of kin or an heir of the
ISSUE decedent, the probate court perforce has to determine and pass upon the issue
Whether respondent is the legitimate child of decedent Francisco M. Angeles and of filiation. A separate action will only result in a multiplicity of suits. Upon this
Genoveva Mercado. – NO. consideration, the RTC acted within bounds when it looked into and pass upon
the claimed relationship of respondent to the late Francisco Angeles.
7
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the herein assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is

hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the order of the trial court dismissing
Special Proceedings No. C-2140 REINSTATED.
DOCTRINE: On the matter of appointment of administrator of the estate of the

deceased, the surviving spouse is preferred over the next of kin of the decedent.
When the law speaks of next of kin, the reference is to those who are entitled, under
the statute of distribution, to the decedent’s property; one whose relationship is such
that he is entitled to share in the estate as distributed, or, in short, an heir. In
resolving, therefore, the issue of whether an applicant for letters of administration is a
next of kin or an heir of the decedent, the probate court perforce has to determine and
pass upon the issue of filiation. A separate action will only result in a multiplicity of
suits.
8
VANCIL V. BELMES in case of both parents’ death, absence or unsuitability may substitute
FACTS: parental authority be exercised by the surviving grandparent.
1. Petitioner, Bonifacia Vancil, is the mother of Reeder C. Vancil, a Navy 5. Petitioner, as the surviving grandparent, can exercise substitute parental
serviceman of the United States of America who died in the said country on authority only in case of death, absence or unsuitability of respondent.
December 22, 1986. During his lifetime, Reeder had two (2) children named Considering that respondent is very much alive and has exercised
Valerie and Vincent by his common-law wife, Helen G. Belmes. continuously parental authority over Vincent, petitioner has to prove, in
2. In the RTC of Cebu, Vancil filed for a petition for guardianship proceedings asserting her right to be the minors guardian, respondents unsuitability.
over the persons and property of her two minor grandchildren Valerie and 6. Petitioner, however, has not proffered convincing evidence showing that
Vincent. respondent is not suited to be the guardian of Vincent. Petitioner merely
3. Vancil was appointed legal and judicial guardian over the persons and estate insists that respondent is morally unfit as guardian of Valerie considering
of Valerie Vancil and Vincent. that respondent’s live-in partner raped Valerie several times. But Valerie,
4. Helen Belmes, submitted an opposition to the subject guardianship being now of major age, is no longer a subject of this guardianship
proceedings asserting that she had already filed a similar petition for proceeding.
guardianship under Special Proceedings No. 2819 before the Regional Trial 7. Even assuming that respondent is unfit as guardian of minor Vincent, still
Court of Pagadian City. petitioner cannot qualify as a substitute guardian. It bears stressing that she
5. RTC Cebu: Ruled in favor of Vancil and ordered her to perform her duties is an American citizen and a resident of Colorado. Obviously, she will not be
and post a bond of P50,000.00. able to perform the responsibilities and obligations required of a guardian. In
6. [Correct Ruling]CA: Reversed RTC decision and stated that: fact, in her petition, she admitted the difficulty of discharging the duties of a
a. The Civil Code considers parents, the father, or in the absence, the guardian by an expatriate, like her. To be sure, she will merely delegate
mother, as natural guardian of her minor children. those duties to someone else who may not also qualify as a guardian.
b. Section 7 of Rule 93 of the Revised Rules of Court confirms the 8. Moreover, we observe that respondents allegation that petitioner has not set
designation of the parents as ipso facto guardian of their minor foot in the Philippines since 1987 has not been controverted by her. Besides,
children without need of a court appointment and only for good petitioners old age and her conviction of libel will give her a second thought
reason may another person be named. of staying here. Indeed, her coming back to this country just to fulfill the
c. There is nothing on record of any reason at all why Helen Belmes, duties of a guardian to Vincent for only two years is not certain.
the biological mother, should be deprived of her legal rights as
natural guardian of her minor children.
7. During trial, Valeria already turned 18. Moot as to her but will still continue DISPOSITION: CA Decision Affirmed
for Vincent.
DOCTRINE:
ISSUES: Who between the mother and grandmother of minor Vincent should be his The law vests on the father and mother joint parental authority over the persons of
guardian. The Mother. their common children. In case of absence or death of either parent, the parent
present shall continue exercising parental authority. Only in case of both parents’
RULING + RATIO: death, absence or unsuitability may substitute parental authority be exercised by the
1. Being the natural mother of minor Vincent, respondent has the surviving grandparent
corresponding natural and legal right to his custody.
2. The right of parents to the custody of their minor children is one of the
natural rights incident to parenthood, a right supported by law and sound
public policy. The right is an inherent one, which is not created by the state
or decisions of the courts, but derives from the nature of the parental
relationship.
3. Petitioners claim to be the guardian of said minor can only be realized by
way of substitute parental authority pursuant to Article 214 of the Family
Code.
4. The law vests on the father and mother joint parental authority over the
persons of their common children. In case of absence or death of either
parent, the parent present shall continue exercising parental authority. Only
9
GABRIEL V. CA 2. In the appointment of the administrator of the estate of a deceased

Nilda Gabriel, Eva Gabriel, Esgar Gabriel, George Gabriel, Rosemarie Gabriel, person, the principal consideration reckoned with is the interest in said
Maribel Gabriel, Cynthia Gabriel, Renato Gabriel, Gerardo Gabriel, Joji Zorayda estate of the one to be appointed as administrator.
Gabriel, Daniel Gabriel and Felicitas Jose-Gabriel (petitioners) v. Hon. a. This is the same consideration which Section 6, Rule 78 takes into
Court of Appeals, Hon. Manuel E. Yuzon, RTC Manila Branch XI, and Roberto account in establishing the order of preference in the appointment
Dindo Gabriel (respondents) of administrators for the estate.
b. The underlying assumption behind this rule is that those who will
FACTS: reap the benefit of a wise, speedy and economical administration of
1. Nine months after Domingo Gabriel died, Roberto Dindo Gabriel filed with the estate, or on the other hand, suffer the consequences of waste,
the RTC a petition for letters of administration alleging, among others, that improvidence or mismanagement, have the highest interest and
he is the son of Domingo, a college graduate, engaged in business, and is most influential motive to administer the estate correctly.
fully capable of administering the estate of the late Domingo. Roberto c. This is likewise the same consideration which the law takes into
mentioned 8 of herein petitioners as the other next of kin and heirs of the account in establishing the preference of the widow to administer
decedent. the estate of her husband upon the latter’s death, because she is
2. RTC issued an order setting the hearing of the petition. Court further supposed to have an interest therein as a partner in the conjugal
directed the publication of the order in Mabuhay, a newspaper of general partnership.
circulation, one a week for 3 consecutive weeks. No opposition having been i. On this ground alone, petitioner Felicitas Jose-
filed despite such publication of the notice of hearing, Roberto was allowed Gabriel, the widow of the deceased Domingo, has
to present his evidence ex parte. Thereafter the probate court issued an every right and is very much entitled to the
order appointing private respondent as administrator of the intestate estate administration of the estate of her husband.
of the late Domingo. 3. It is true that Section 6(b), Rule 78 provides that the preference given to the
3. Roberto filed for approval by the probate court an Inventory and Appraisal surviving spouse or next of kin may be disregarded by the court where said
placing the value of the properties left by Domingo at P18,960,000. persons neglect to apply for letters of administration for 30 days after the
4. Petitioners filed their Opposition and Motion praying for the recall of the decedent’s death.
letters of administration issued to Roberto and the issuance of such letters a. However, it is our considered opinion that such failure is not
instead to Nilda Gabriel, as the legitimate daughter of Domingo or any of the sufficient to exclude the widow from the administration of the estate
other petitioners. of her husband. There must be a very strong case to justify the
5. Probate Court issued an order denying the opposition on the ground that the exclusion of the widow from the administration.
petitioners had not shown any circumstance sufficient to overturn the order. 4. On the other hand, we feel that we should not nullify the appointment
MR was likewise denied. of Roberto as administrator. The determination of a person’s suitability for
6. CA dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground that the appointment of the office of judicial administrator rests in the sound judgment of the court
an administrator is left entirely to the sound discretion of the trial court. The exercising the power of appointment and said judgment is not to be
fact that there was no personal notice served on petitioners is not a denial of interfered with on appeal unless the said court is clearly in error.
due process as such service is not a jurisdictional requisite and petitioners a. A mere importunity by some of the heirs of the deceased, there
were heard on their opposition. being no factual and substantial bases, is not adequate
ratiocination for the removal of Roberto. Suffice it to state that the
ISSUES: WoN Roberto was properly appointed as the administrator of Domingo’s removal of an administrator does not lie on the whims, caprices and
estate? YES but Felicitas (widow) should be appointed as co-administrator as well. dictates of the heirs or beneficiaries of the estate. In addition, the
court may also exercise its discretion in appointing an administrator
RULING + RATIO: where those who are entitled to letters fail to apply therefor within a
1. Evidently, Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court prescribes the order of given time.
preference in the issuance of letters of administration, categorically seeks 5. We see no reason why, for the benefit of the estate and those
out the surviving spouse, the next of kin and the creditors, and requires that interested therein, more than one administrator may not be appointed
sequence to be observed in appointing an administrator. It would be a grave since that is both legally permissible and sanctioned in practice.
abuse of discretion for the probate court to imperiously set aside and a. Section 6(a), Rule 78 specifically states that letters of
insouciantly ignore that directive without any valid sufficient reason thereof. administration may be issued to both the surviving spouse and the
next of kin. In fact, Section 2, Rule 82 contemplates a contingency
10
which may arise when there is only one administrator but which
may easily be remediable where there is co-administration.
b. Also, co-administration herein will constitute a recognition of both
the extent of the interest of the widow in the estate and the
creditable services rendered to and which may further be expected
from private respondent for the same estate.
c. Under both PH and American jurisprudence, the appointment of co-
administrators has been upheld for various reasons:
i. To have the benefit of their judgment and perhaps at all
times to have different interests represented
ii. Where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or
factions be represented in the management of the estate
of the deceased
iii. Where the estate is large or, from any cause, an intricate
and perplexing one to settle
iv. To have all the interested persons satisfied and the
representatives to work in harmony for the best interests
of the estate
v. When a person entitled to the administration of an estate
desires to have another competent person associated with
him in the office.
DISPOSITION: MODIFIED by AFFIRMING the validity of the appointment of

respondent Roberto Dindo Gabriel as judicial administrator and ORDERING the
appointment of petitioner Felicitas Jose-Gabriel as co-administratrix.
DOCTRINE: The purpose of having co-administrators is to have the benefit of their

judgment and perhaps at all times to have different interests represented, especially
considering that in this proceeding they will respectively represent the legitimate and
illegitimate groups of heirs to the estate. Thereby, it may reasonably be expected that
all interested persons will be satisfied, with the representatives working in harmony
under the direction and supervision of the probate court.
11
DE GUZMAN V. LIMCOLIOC
FACTS:
1. Proceso de Guzman died without leaving a will
2. Deceased was married to Santos and had 4 children
3. After Santos’ death Proceso married Limcolioc and had no children in this
marriage
4. CFI of Rizal appointed Nicolasa (child of first marriage) as administratrix
5. Limcolioc asked to set aside the appointment and appoint her instead
claiming preference as his widow
6. Court denied
ISSUE: W/N Court erred in not appointing her as administratrix? No
RATIO:
1. Principal consideration reckoned with in the appointment of the administrator
of the estate of a deceased person is the interest in said estate of the one to
be appointed as administrator
2. The preference given to widows to administer the estate of their deceased
husbands is not absolute if there are other reasons justifying the
appointment of someone else
3. If the interest in the estate is what principally determines the preference in
the appointment of an administrator of the estate of a deceased person, and
if there is another who has more interest therein than the surviving spouse,
the preference established in the latter's favor becomes untenable.
4. Nicolasa claims that the properties in question were acquired through the
mutual labor of her father and her mother and none was acquired during the
second marriage
5. Limcolioc did not deny this claim justifying the court’s decision to name
Nicolasa as administratrix
6. The children of Proceso as a result of his first marriage would naturally have
more interest in said properties than Limcolioc who only has interest to said
properties by way of usufruct to a portion equal to the corresponding share
one child
DISPOSITION: The appealed decision is affirmed, with the costs to the appellant. So
ordered.
12
TORRES V. SICAT shown hostility to the creditors by openly disputing their credits, she is
(PEDRO DE JESUS, administrator-appellee v. HERMENEGILDA SICAT VDA. DE therefore unsuitable, for having adverse interests."
MORALES, oppositor-appellant) 10. The surviving widow" the trial judge stated, "has always consistently refused to
recognize the credits" and manifested her determination to "resist the claims of
FACTS: creditors."
1. Lusis Morales was married to Hermenegilda Sicat. He died in Tarlac on 11. At the hearing of the petition for the appointment of administrator, this widow
August 1950. Jose Torres, creditor, commenced a special proceeding in Tarlac practically did nothing more than to inform the alleged creditors, "prove your
for the issuance of a letter of administration in favor of Atty. De Jesus to settle credit before I honor it." That is not necessarily dishonest nor contrary to real
the estate of the deceased, creditors. And then, not having opposed all creditors, because she did not
2. The widow opposed and wanted to be the administratrix. deny the estate's liability to the People's Bank, she could not strictly be
3. The petitioner submitted evidence. The oppositor submitted none. considered hostile to the creditors. Had she acknowledged indebtedness to
4. The trial judge, disregarding the preference established by law for the surviving every one coming forward with a claim, regardless of its merit, she would be
widow, entered on August 16, 1951 an order appointing Atty. Pedro B. De useless, even harmful, both to the heirs and the actual creditors.
Jesus as administrator. 12. Under the rules (Rule 87) creditors; claims may be filed, and considered,
5. The widow appealed on time, and argued several assignments of error only after the regular administrator has been appointed. Hence, in
revolving around the principal issue whether this appointment should be selecting the administrator, the court could not yet normally accord
upheld, ignoring the surviving widows preferential right. priority treatment to the interests of those whose credits were in dispute.
6. The order making the appointment is undoubtedly appealable. And counsel for herein appellant did well in opposing the presentation of
evidence of the objected credits at the hearing, arguing in part,
ISSUE: . . . the time has not yet arrived when this court can even entertain the
W/N the widow or the creditor should be declared the administrator? Widow. The presentation of those exhibits because the stage of presenting claims
debt claimed by this creditor is still in dispute. has not yet arrived. Consequently, this court can not even receive as
evidence the said documents as evidence of indebtedness, because if
DECISION: those evidence will be accepted then we will be in a position to rebut
7. Under section 6, rule 79 of the Rules of Court, when a person dies intestate, them and to enter into actual trial to show that they are not really
administration should be granted: evidence of indebtedness, and in that case we will not terminate because
a. To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or then we will be contending as to whether those were really executed or
both, …; really contracted. . . .
b. if such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or 13. On the other hand, the appealed order conceding that the evidence "showed
the person selected by them, be incompetent or unwilling...it may be clearly that the surviving widow is fully competent in a high degree to
granted to one or more of the principal creditors, if competent and administer the intestate of her deceased husband", plainly indicates that
willing to serve; except for her supposed hostility to creditors she was suitable for the trust.
c. If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be Consequently, having found that her attitude did not per se constitute
granted to such other person as the court may select. antagonism to the creditors, we must necessarily declare and enforce her
8. The order of preference provided in this section is founded on the assumption superior right to appointment as administratrix under Rule 79.
that the persons preferred are suitable. If they are not, the court may entirely
disregard the preference thus provided. This is the reason for the rule that in DISPOSITION:
the selection of an administrator courts may exercise discretion, and, as stated
elsewhere, the person appearing in the order of preference may not be Wherefore, the questioned order appointing Atty. Pedro B. De Jesus is annulled,
appointed where he appears to be unsuitable for the trust, he having an and one will be entered requiring the issuance by the court a quo of letters of
adverse interest or is hostile to the interested parties to such an extent as to administration to the widow appellant subject to such terms and conditions as are
make his selection inadvisable. But, of course, the order of preference may be appropriate under the Rules. Costs against the appellee.
disregarded only when the reasons therefor are positive and clear.
9. The trial judge was cognizant of this statutory preference. But he expressly DOCTRINE:
stated his reason for disregarding it, saying in effect: "Apparently the amount of
credits exceeds the value of the conjugal assets; therefore the interest of the See bold
creditors deserves paramount consideration. Now inasmuch as the widow has
13
SUNTAY III V. SUNTAY (2010) 10. SC reversed and set aside the ruling of the CA, included Emilio III as co-
administrator of Cristina’s estate, giving weight to his interest in Federico’s
FACTS: estate.
1. Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay died intestate. Federico and Cristina had 11. In this motion, Isabel seeks for the affirmance of the CA Decision instituting
legitimate and illegitimate grandchildren from their only child, Emilio I, who her as sole administratrix. She contends that the order of preference for the
predeceased the, and his wife, Isabel. issuance of letters of administration in Section 6, Rule 78 cannot be ignored
2. The spouses and the grandparents were involved in several domestic cases and Article 992 of the CC must be followed. She asserts that Emilio III
(Isabel filed a case for parricide against Emilio, Emilio filed for legal demonstrated adverse interests and disloyalty to the estate.
separation, charging her among others of infidelity). The marriage was 12. She argues that: 1) Emilio III is an illegitimate grandchild and therefore, not
declared null and void and of no effect. The grandchildren lived with Isabel. an heir of the decedent, 2) corollary thereto, Emilio III, not being a “next of
The illegitimate children were reared by Federico and Cristina since infancy. kin” of the decedent, has no interest in the estate to justify his appointment
3. Federico and Cristina petitioned for visitation rights for their grandchildren, as administrator thereof, 3) Emilio III’s actuations since his appointment as
which was granted, but eventually reduced, until it was stopped since the administrator by the RTC on 9 November 2001 emphatically demonstrate
visits caused the grandchildren stress and anxiety. The illegitimate the validity and wisdom of the order of preference in Section 6, Rule 78, and
grandchildren were adopted by Federico three years after Cristina’s death. 4) there is no basis for joint administration as there are no “opposing parties
4. Isabel (a legitimate grandchild), filed before the Malolos RTC a petition for or factions to be represented.”
the issuance of letters of administration over Cristina’s estate. Federico
opposed, pointing out that: 1) as the surviving spouse of the decedent, he ISSUES: W/N Emilio III or the respondent, is better qualified to act as administrator of
should be appointed administrator of the decedent’s estate; 2) as part owner the decedent's estate. JOINT ADMINISTRATION
of the mass of conjugal properties left by the decedent, he must be accorded
preference in the administration thereof; 3) Isabel and her siblings had been
alienated from their grandparents for more than thirty years, 4) the
enumeration of heirs in the petition was incomplete as it did not mention the RULING + RATIO:
other children of his son, Emilio III and Nenita, 5) even before the death of 1. The basis for Article 992 of the Civil Code, referred to as the iron curtain bar
his wife, Federico had administered their conjugal properties, and thus, is rule, is quite the opposite scenario in the facts obtaining herein for the actual
better situated to protect the integrity of the decedent’s estate, 6) the probate relationship between Federico and Cristina, on one hand, and Emilio III, on
value of the estate as stated in the petition was grossly overstated, and 7) the other, was akin to the normal relationship of legitimate relatives.
Isabel’s allegation that some of the properties are in the hands of usurpers is 2. In the appointment of an administrator, the principal consideration is
untrue. the interest in the estate of the one to be appointed. The order of
5. Federico filed a MTD on the ground that Isabel had no right of representation preference does not rule out the appointment of co-administrators,
to the estate of Cristina, being an illegitimate grandchild as a result of her especially in cases where justice and equity demand that opposing
parents’ marriage being declared null and void. However, the SC in the 2010 parties or factions be represented in the management of the estates, a
Suntay case categorically declared that Isabel and her siblings are legitimate situation which obtains here.
children of Emilio, having been born of a voidable marriage as opposed to a 3. Similarly, the subject estate in this case calls to the succession other
void marriage. They can therefore represent him in the estate of their putative heirs, including another illegitimate grandchild of Cristina and
legitimate grandmother. Federico, Nenita Tañedo, but who was likewise adopted by Federico, and
6. Federico nominated Emilio III (the illegitimate grandchild) to administer the the two (2) siblings of respondent Isabel, Margarita and Emilio II. In all,
estate on his behalf in the event letters of administration issues to Federico. considering the conflicting claims of the putative heirs, and the unliquidated
Emilio III then filed an Opposition-In-Intervention, echoing the allegations of conjugal partnership of Cristina and Federico which forms part of their
his grandfather’s opposition, alleging that Federico, or in his stead, Emilio III, respective estates, we are impelled to move in only one direction,i.e., joint
was better equipped than respondent to administer and manage the estate administration of the subject estate.
of the decedent. 4. One final note. Counsel for petitioner meticulously argues that Article 992 of
7. Federico died. the Civil Code, the successional bar between the legitimate and illegitimate
8. RTC appointed Emilio III as administrator of the estate. relatives of a decedent, does not apply in this instance where facts
9. CA reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC, revoked Letters of indubitably demonstrate the contrary - Emilio III, an illegitimate grandchild of
Administration issued to Emilio III, and appointed Isabel as administratrix of the decedent, was actually treated by the decedent and her husband as their
the estate. own son, reared from infancy, educated and trained in their businesses, and
14
eventually legally adopted by decedent's husband, the original oppositor to

respondent's petition for letters of administration.
5. Indeed, the factual antecedents of this case accurately reflect the basis of
intestate succession, i.e., love first descends, for the decedent, Cristina, did
not distinguish between her legitimate and illegitimate grandchildren. Neither
did her husband, Federico, who, in fact, legally raised the status of Emilio III
from an illegitimate grandchild to that of a legitimate child. The peculiar
circumstances of this case, painstakingly pointed out by counsel for
petitioner, overthrow the legal presumption in Article 992 of the Civil Code
that there exist animosity and antagonism between legitimate and
illegitimate descendants of a deceased.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court

of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 74949 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Letters of
Administration over the estate of decedent Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay shall issue to
both petitioner Emilio A.M. Suntay III and respondent Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay
upon payment by each of a bond to be set by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78,
Malolos, Bulacan, in Special Proceeding Case No. 117-M-95. The Regional Trial
Court, Branch 78, Malolos, Bulacan is likewise directed to make a determination and
to declare the heirs of decedent Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay according to the actual
factual milieu as proven by the parties, and all other persons with legal interest in the
subject estate. It is further directed to settle the estate of decedent Cristina Aguinaldo-
Suntay with dispatch. No costs.
15
SUNTAY III V. SUNTAY (2012) 22. SC reversed and set aside the ruling of the CA, included Emilio III as co-
administrator of Cristina’s estate, giving weight to his interest in Federico’s
FACTS: estate.
13. Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay died intestate. Federico and Cristina had 23. In this motion, Isabel seeks for the affirmance of the CA Decision instituting
legitimate and illegitimate grandchildren from their only child, Emilio I, who her as sole administratrix. She contends that the order of preference for the
predeceased the, and his wife, Isabel. issuance of letters of administration in Section 6, Rule 78 cannot be ignored
14. The spouses and the grandparents were involved in several domestic cases and Article 992 of the CC must be followed. She asserts that Emilio III
(Isabel filed a case for parricide against Emilio, Emilio filed for legal demonstrated adverse interests and disloyalty to the estate.
separation, charging her among others of infidelity). The marriage was 24. She argues that: 1) Emilio III is an illegitimate grandchild and therefore, not
declared null and void and of no effect. The grandchildren lived with Isabel. an heir of the decedent, 2) corollary thereto, Emilio III, not being a “next of
The illegitimate children were reared by Federico and Cristina since infancy. kin” of the decedent, has no interest in the estate to justify his appointment
15. Federico and Cristina petitioned for visitation rights for their grandchildren, as administrator thereof, 3) Emilio III’s actuations since his appointment as
which was granted, but eventually reduced, until it was stopped since the administrator by the RTC on 9 November 2001 emphatically demonstrate
visits caused the grandchildren stress and anxiety. The illegitimate the validity and wisdom of the order of preference in Section 6, Rule 78, and
grandchildren were adopted by Federico three years after Cristina’s death. 4) there is no basis for joint administration as there are no “opposing parties
16. Isabel (a legitimate grandchild), filed before the Malolos RTC a petition for or factions to be represented.”
the issuance of letters of administration over Cristina’s estate. Federico
opposed, pointing out that: 1) as the surviving spouse of the decedent, he
should be appointed administrator of the decedent’s estate; 2) as part owner ISSUES: W/N Isabel should be the administratrix of Cristina’s estate. YES.
of the mass of conjugal properties left by the decedent, he must be accorded
preference in the administration thereof; 3) Isabel and her siblings had been RULING + RATIO:
alienated from their grandparents for more than thirty years, 4) the 1. The paramount consideration in the appointment of an administrator
enumeration of heirs in the petition was incomplete as it did not mention the over the estate of a decedent is the prospective administrator’s interest
other children of his son, Emilio III and Nenita, 5) even before the death of in the estate. This is the same consideration which Section 6, Rule 78
his wife, Federico had administered their conjugal properties, and thus, is takes into account in establishing the order of preference in the
better situated to protect the integrity of the decedent’s estate, 6) the probate appointment of administrator for the estate. The rationale behind the
value of the estate as stated in the petition was grossly overstated, and 7) rule is that those who will reap the benefit of a wise, speedy and
Isabel’s allegation that some of the properties are in the hands of usurpers is economical administration of the estate, or, in the alternative, suffer
untrue. the consequences of waste, improvidence or mismanagement, have
17. Federico filed a MTD on the ground that Isabel had no right of representation the highest interest and most influential motive to administer the estate
to the estate of Cristina, being an illegitimate grandchild as a result of her correctly. In all, given that the rule speaks of an order of preference,
parents’ marriage being declared null and void. However, the SC in the 2010 the person to be appointed administrator of a decedent’s estate must
Suntay case categorically declared that Isabel and her siblings are legitimate demonstrate not only an interest in the estate, but an interest therein
children of Emilio, having been born of a voidable marriage as opposed to a greater than any other candidate.
void marriage. They can therefore represent him in the estate of their 2. Under certain circumstances and for various reasons well-settled in
legitimate grandmother. Philippine and American jurisprudence, we have upheld the appointment of
18. Federico nominated Emilio III (the illegitimate grandchild) to administer the co-administrators: (1) to have the benefits of their judgment and perhaps at
estate on his behalf in the event letters of administration issues to Federico. all times to have different interests represented; (2) where justice and equity
Emilio III then filed an Opposition-In-Intervention, echoing the allegations of demand that opposing parties or factions be represented in the management
his grandfather’s opposition, alleging that Federico, or in his stead, Emilio III, of the estate of the deceased; (3) where the estate is large or, from any
was better equipped than respondent to administer and manage the estate cause, an intricate and perplexing one to settle; (4) to have all interested
of the decedent. persons satisfied and the representatives to work in harmony for the best
19. Federico died. interests of the estate; and when a person entitled to the administration of an
20. RTC appointed Emilio III as administrator of the estate. estate desires to have another competent person associated with him in the
21. CA reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC, revoked Letters of office.
Administration issued to Emilio III, and appointed Isabel as administratrix of 3. The collected teaching is that mere demonstration of interest in the
the estate. estate to be settled does not ipso facto entitle an interested person to
co-administration thereof. Neither does squabbling among the heirs
16
nor adverse interests necessitate the discounting of the order of

preference set forth in Section 6, Rule 78. Indeed, in the appointment of
administrator of the estate of a deceased person, the principal
consideration reckoned with is the interest in said estate of the one to
be appointed as administrator. Given Isabel’s unassailable interest in
the estate as one of the decedent’s legitimate grandchildren and
undoubted nearest "next of kin," the appointment of Emilio III as co-
administrator of the same estate, cannot be a demandable right. It is a
matter left entirely to the sound discretion of the Court and depends on
the facts and the attendant circumstances of the case.
4. Contrary to the assumption made in the Decision that Emilio III’s
demonstrable interest in the estate makes him a suitable co-administrator
thereof, the evidence reveals that Emilio III has turned out to be an
unsuitable administrator of the estate.
5. As administrator, Emilio III enters into the office, posts a bond and executes
an oath to faithfully discharge the duties of settling the decedent’s estate
with the end in view of distribution to the heirs, if any. This he failed to do.
The foregoing circumstances of Emilio III’s omission and inaction become
even more significant and speak volume of his unsuitability as administrator
as it demonstrates his interest adverse to those immediately interested in the
estate of the decedent, Cristina.
6. In this case, palpable from the evidence on record, the pleadings, and the
protracted litigation, is the inescapable fact that Emilio III and respondent
Isabel have a deep aversion for each other.1awp++i1 To our mind, it
becomes highly impractical, nay, improbable, for the two to work as co-
administrators of their grandmother’s estate. The allegations of Emilio III, the
testimony of Federico and the other witnesses for Federico and Emilio III
that Isabel and her siblings were estranged from their grandparents further
drive home the point that Emilio III bears hostility towards Isabel. More
importantly, it appears detrimental to the decedent’s estate to appoint a co-
administrator (Emilio III) who has shown an adverse interest of some kind or
hostility to those, such as herein respondent Isabel, immediately interested
in the said estate.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY

GRANTED. Our Decision in G.R. No. 183053 dated 16 June 2010 is MODIFIED.
Letters of Administration over the estate of decedent Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay shall
solely issue to respondent Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay upon payment of a bond to be
set by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Malolos, Bulacan, in Special Proceeding
Case No. 117-M-95. The Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Malolos, Bulacan is
likewise directed to settle the estate of decedent Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay with
dispatch. No costs.
DOCTRINE: IN BOLD
17
DURAN V. DURAN
FACTS:
1. Duran (Decedent) died and was survived by his Widow, Brothers and
Sisters, and Nephews and Nieces.
2. Cipriano Duran (Brother 1) renounced his hereditary rights to Josefina Duran
(Widow) for P2500.
3. A year later Brother 1 filed intestate proceedings and asked to be named
special administrator.
4. Widow opposed Brother 1’s petition by filing motion to dismiss saying he is
not an interested party in the estate.
a. Widow also asked in alternative to be appointed administratrix
instead.
5. Brother 1 said that Widow was not actually Deceden’ts wife and Brother 2
joined in moving to strike out Widow’s opposition.
6. CFI ruled in favor of Widow. CFI said that Brother 1 lacked interest in the
estate seeing as he renounced it.
7. Brother 1 now appeals directly to the SC claiming he is still an interested
party.
a. Brother 1 is actually arguing that his assignment of the hereditary
rights amounts to a partition which still needs approval by
settlement court to be effective.
ISSUE: WON Brother 1 is an interested party? NO. The assignment was not a
partition which needed approval by the settlement court. This assignment was
done before the proceedings were even opened and does not need the court’s
approval to be effective.
RATIO:
1. Rule 79 s2 requires that the proceedings be filed by an “interested party”.
Brother 1’s argument that his assignment is not yet effective therefore he is
still interested is not a good one.
2. In the previous Santos case the assignment was not effective because it
happened while the proceedings were already initiated, or pendente lite.
3. In this case there was no settlement proceeding and what took place
was actually an extrajudicial partition which is valid between parties.
Even if the requisites were not followed it bears remembering that the formal
requisites are only to bind 3rd persons and not the parties themselves.
4. If brother 1 wanted to take back that assignment he should argue fraud or
lesion and pursue an action to rescind or annul it.
5. Brother 2’s motion to intervene will fail since Brother 1 had no cause of
action anyway.
6. Widow not actually appointed administratrix since she prayed for it in
alternative in case motion to dismiss not granted. In this case it was.
DISPOSITION: Wherefore, the dismissal order appealed from is hereby

affirmed, with costs against appellants. So ordered.
18
TAYAG V. TAYAG-GALLOR a. The right of respondent to maintain such a suit is dependent

on whether she is entitled to successional rights as an
FACTS: illegitimate child of the decedent which, in turn, may be
1. Respondent Felicidad Tayag-Gallor filed a petition for the issuance of letters established through voluntary or compulsory recognition.
of administration over the estate of Ismael Tayag. She alleged that: i. Voluntary recognition must be express such as that
a. She is one of 3 illegitimate children of the late Ismael Tayag and in a record of birth appearing in the civil register, a
Ester Angeles. final judgment, a public instrument or private
b. The decedent was married to petitioner Victoria Tayag but the 2 handwritten instrument signed by the parent
allegedly did not have any children of their own. concerned.
2. Petitioner opposed the petition, asserting that: ii. Judicial or compulsory recognition may be
a. She and Ismael Tayag got married in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, demanded by the illegitimate child of his parents
and that they have an adopted daughter, Carmela Tayag, who is and must be brought during the lifetime of the
presently residing in the USA. presumed parents.
b. It is necessary to allege that respondent was acknowledged and 4. Petitioner's thesis is essentially based on her contention that by Ismael
recognized by Ismael Tayag as his illegitimate child. There being Tayag's death, respondent's illegitimate filiation and necessarily, her
no such allegation, the action becomes one to compel recognition interest in the decedent's estate which the Rules require to be material
which cannot be brought after the death of the putative father. and direct, may no longer be established.
3. Trial Court → In favor of respondent a. Petitioner, however, overlooks the fact that respondent's
4. CA → Affirmed successional rights may be established not just by a judicial
a. The allegation that respondent is an illegitimate child suffices for a action to compel recognition but also by proof that she had
cause of action, without need to state that she had been recognized been voluntarily acknowledged and recognized as an
and acknowledged as such. illegitimate child.
b. However, respondent still has to prove her allegation and, 5. Respondent in this case had not been given the opportunity to present
correspondingly, petitioner has the right to refute the allegation in evidence to show whether she had been voluntarily recognized and
the course of the settlement proceedings. acknowledged by her deceased father because of petitioner's opposition
to her petition and motion for hearing on affirmative defenses.
ISSUE: W/N respondent’s petition for the issuance of letters of administration 6. We find, therefore, that the allegation that respondent is an
sufficiently states a cause of action considering that respondent merely alleged illegitimate child of the decedent suffices even without further
therein that she is an illegitimate child of the decedent, without stating that she stating that she has been so recognized or acknowledged.
had been acknowledged or recognized as such by the latter. a. A motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause
of action in the complaint hypothetically admits the truth of
HELD/RATIO: YES the facts alleged therein.
1. Rule 79 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for the issuance b. Assuming the fact alleged to be true, i.e., that respondent is the
of letters of administration must be filed by an interested person. decedent's illegitimate child, her interest in the estate as such
a. Interested party is one who either: would definitely be material and direct.
i. would be benefited by the estate, such as an heir; or c. The appellate court was, therefore, correct in allowing the
ii. has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor. proceedings to continue, ruling that, "respondent still has the duty
b. This interest must be: to prove the allegation (that she is an illegitimate child of the
i. material and direct; decedent), just as the petitioner has the right to disprove it, in the
ii. not merely indirect or contingent. course of the settlement proceedings.”
2. Hence, where the right of the person filing a petition for the issuance
of letters of administration is dependent on a fact which has not DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision of
been established or worse, can no longer be established, such the Court of Appeals dated 29 May 2006 and its Resolution dated 28 August
contingent interest does not make her an interested party. 2006 are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
a. Here lies the complication in the case which the appellate court
had not discussed, although its disposition of the case is correct.
3. Essentially, the petition for the issuance of letters of administration
is a suit for the settlement of the intestate estate of Ismael Tayag.
19
GUTIERREZ DEL CAMPO V. CALDERON 4. If the law permits a testator to dispose of the free third of his hereditary
estate in favor of a stranger (art. 808 of the Civil Code), there is no legal,
FACTS: moral or social reason to prevent him from making over that third to his
1. (1ST PART IS IN SPANISH SO PLEASE FORGIVE MY ROUGH illegitimate son who has not the status of a natural son. On the contrary, by
TRANSLATIONS LOL) reason of blood, the son, although illegitimate, has a preferential right over a
2. The judicial administrator of the estate of Francisco Varela Calderon, the stranger unless by his behavior he has become unworthy of such
deceased, submitted a project of partition for the approval of the lower consideration."
court. 5. Hence, these so-called illegitimate children (as SC did not rule on whether
3. The respondents filed an opposition to the approval of said project. The they were so or not) are not incapacitated to take property under the will of
administrator objected to the intervention of the appellants in this case. their father.
4. RTC sided with administrator, and reasoned out the following: 6. Article 806 of the Civil Code reads: "The legitime is that part of his property
a. ORIGINALLY IN SPANISH: Having the representation both of the of which the testator can not dispose because the law has reserved it for
judicial administrator and of the opponents admitted as indisputable certain heirs, called, on that ground, forced heirs."
facts that the late Dr. Francisco Varela Calderon passed away 7. Respondents are not forced heirs of deceased, and therefore have no
single and without leaving any ascendancy and that the opponents right to any part of the property left by the testator, once he had
are legitimate brothers of the same, it is forwarded that the disposed of the same by will. If any of them were forced heirs they
aforementioned opponents (respondents) do not have the would be entitled to intervene in this case and protect their interest in
condition of forced heirs (Article 807, Civil Code) and, so far as they may have been prejudiced by the will. It is evident
therefore, have no right to intervene in the consideration of the therefore that they have not been injured or prejudiced in any manner
aforementioned project of partition and adjudication of whatsoever. Only forced heirs whose rights have been prejudiced have
property, nor to challenge the institution of heirs made by the a right to intervene in a case of this character.
deceased in his will, since he is single and has no heirs, he
could dispose by will of all his assets or part of them in favor DISPOSITION: For the foregoing reasons no error was committed by the lower
of anyone with the capacity to acquire them (Article 763, Civil court in the orders appealed from. Both orders are affirmed with costs against
Code). the appellants.
5. On to SC on appeal
DOCTRINE: IN BOLD AND UNDERLINED
ISSUE: Did the RTC err in refusing to allow respondents to intervene? NO
HELD/RATIO: NO
1. It is admitted that Francisco Varela Calderon was a bachelor, a citizen of the

Philippine Islands, and at the time he made his will was residing temporarily
in France and that at the time of his death he left no ascendants. The
appellants are brothers and sisters of full blood of the deceased and
therefore they are not his forced heirs. Article 763 of the Civil Code reads:
"Any person who has no forced heirs may dispose by will of all his property
or any part of it in favor of any person qualified to acquire it…”
2. Respondents contend that beneficiaries under the will of Francisco Varela
Calderon are illegitimate children and are not qualified to inherit from the
deceased.
3. However, SC cited Barrios v. Enriquez which said that while indeed
Article 845 of the then Civil Code says that only support is due the
illegitimate children who do not have the status of natural children, the
article does not prohibit them from receiving, nor their parents from
giving them, something more than support, as long as legitimate
children are not prejudiced.
20
GARCIA VDA. DE CHUA V. CA 11. RTC issued an order appointing Romulo Lim Uy, a first cousin of the
FACTS: deceased, as special administrator of the decedent's estate and appointed
1. Roberto Lim Chua lived out of wedlock with Respondent Florita with two Florita as guardian over the persons and properties of her children.
illegitimate children: Roberto Rafson Alonzo and Rudyard Pride Alonzo. 12. Petitioner questions the issuance of letters of administration sine the case
Roberto Chua died intestate in Davao City. Florita filed a Petition for was for guardianship and therefore he was not properly notified.
guardianship over the persons and properties of her two children. 13. CA held that while private respondent may have alleged in her opposition to
2. The trial court issued an order setting the hearing of the petition and directed the motion to dismiss that petition was for guardianship, the fact remains that
that notice thereof be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the the very allegations of the original petition unmistakably showed a twin
province of Maguindanao and Cotabato City and or Davao City. purpose: (1) guardianship; and (2) issuance of letters of administration. As
3. Petitioner Antonietta, representing to be the surviving spouse of Roberto such, it was unnecessary for her to republish the notice of hearing through a
Chua, filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of improper venue. Antonietta newspaper of general circulation in the province.
alleged that decedent’s residence is in Davao City.
4. Florita filed a Motion for Admission of an Amended Petition to change the ISSUES: WoN the petition was originally on guardianship thus the court wrongly
title. The petition was originally: decided on the issuance of letters of administration?
“IN RE: petition for declaration of heirship, guardianship over the persons
and properties of minors robert rafson alonzo sp. Proc. No/ 331 and rudyard RULING + RATIO:
pride alonzo, all surnamed chua and issuance of letters of administration.” 1. NO. The amended title of the original petition clearly shows that the petition
5. Now, it’s: is one which includes the issuance of letters of administration.
“IN RE: petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of roberto l. Chua, 2. Likewise, the prayer of the petition states:
declaration of heirship, guardianship over the persons and properties of “2. That Letters of Administration be issued to herein petition for the
minors robert and rudyard, all surnamed chua and issuance of letters of administration of the estate of the deceased ROBERTO LIM CHUA.”
administration.” 3. The original petition also contains the jurisdictional facts required in a
6. Paragraph 4 of the original petition was also amended to read as follows: petition for the issuance of letters of administration which are: (1) the death
“4. That Roberto Lim Chua, father of the abovementioned minors is a of the testator; (2) residence at the time of death in the province where the
resident of Cotabato City and died intestate on May 28, 1992 at Davao City.” probate court is located; and (3) if the decedent was a non-resident, the fact
7. At the hearing of the motion to dismiss, Antonietta presented several of being a resident of a foreign country and that the decedent has left an
Exhibits in support of her allegation: (1) xerox copy of the alleged marriage estate in the province where the court is sitting.
contract; (2) TCT issued in the name of Roberto L. Chua married to 4. While paragraph 4 of the original petition failed to indicate the residence of
Antonietta Garcia, and a resident of Davao City; (3) Residence Certificates the deceased at the time of his death, the omission was cured by the
from 1988 and 1989 issued at Davao City indicating that he was married and amended petitions.
was born in Cotabato City; (4) Income Tax Returns filed in Davao City; (5) 5. All told the original petition alleged substantially all the facts required to be
passport of the decedent specifying that he was married and his residence stated in the petition for letters of administration. Consequently, there was no
was Davao City. need to publish the amended petition.
8. Petitioner through counsels, presented the ff to support her allegation: (1) 6. Be that as it may, petitioner has no legal standing to file the motion to
Income Tax Returns filed in Cotabato City indicating therein that he was dismiss as she is not related to the deceased, nor does she have any
single; (2) birth certificates of the alleged two illegitimate children of the interest in his estate as creditor or otherwise. Only an interested person
decedent; (3) Resident Certificates of the decedent issued in Cotabato City; may oppose the petition for issuance of letters of administration. An
(4) Registration Certificate of Vehicle of the decedent showing that his interested person is one who would be benefited by the estate such as
residence is Cotabato City. an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor;
9. RTC and CA ruled in favor of respondent finding that petitioner failed to his interest is material and direct, and not one that is only indirect or
establish that she was the lawful wife of the decedent. The best evidence is contingent.
a valid marriage contract which the movant failed to produce. Consequently, 7. Petitioner was not able to prove her status as the surviving wife of the
she has no personality to file the subject motion to dismiss. decedent. The best proof of marriage between man and wife is a marriage
10. On the issue of the residence of the decedent at the time of his death, the contract and not a photox.
decedent as a businessman with many business residences from different
parts of the country where he usually stays to supervise and pursue his DISPOSITION: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition of petitioner Antonietta
business ventures. Davao City is one of them. Chua is hereby denied.
DE GUZMAN V. ANGELES
21
possession of alleged properties of a decedent for the preservation of the estate in a

FACTS: petition for the settlement of the intestate estate before the probate court causes
1. Note: parties here are all named De Guzman; Husband (deceased), Wife, notice to be served upon all interested parties pursuant to section 3, Rule 79? No
Father-in-law (father of the husband.
2. Wife filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of Husband RATIO:
before RTC Makati. The petition alleges that: 1. Santos v. Castillo
a. Husband died in Makati Before a court may acquire jurisdiction over the case for the probate of a will
b. at the time of his death, the decedent was a resident of Makati and the administration of the properties left by a deceased person, the
c. decedent left personal and real properties application must allege the residence of the deceased and other
d. properties are conjugal indispensable facts or circumstances and that the applicant is the executor
e. estate is more or less 4Million in value named in the will or is the person who had custody of the will to be probated.
f. there are possible creditors of the estate 2. Here, RTC acquired jurisdiction over the proceedings upon the filing of a
g. compulsory heirs are the Wife and their minor children petition for the settlement of an intestate estate since the petition had
h. After diligent search, they found no will of the husband alleged all the jurisdictional facts, residence of the deceased, the possible
i. Wife is the most qualified and entitled to the grant of letters of heirs and creditors and the probable value of the estate pursuant to Section
administration 2, Rule 79.
3. Wife filed a motion for writ of possession over 5 vehicles registered under a. However, we must differentiate between jurisdiction of the probate
the name of Husband, alleged to be their conjugal properties but which are court over the proceedings for the administration of an estate and
at present in the possession of Father-in-law. its jurisdiction over the persons who are interested in the settlement
a. With this, RTC issued an order to preserve the assets of Husband of the estate of the deceased person. The court may also have
and directed the deputy sheriff to notify Father-in-law. jurisdiction over the "estate" of the deceased person but the
4. Wife filed an "Ex-Parte Motion to Appoint Petitioner as Special Administratrix determination of the properties comprising that estate must follow
of the Estate.” The motion was set for hearing on June 5. established rules.
a. On the hearing (June 5 1987), RTC issued an order directing all b. Under Section 3, Rule 79, the probate court must cause notice
parties in the case be notified. However, no notice of the order was through publication of the petition after it receives the same. The
given to the Father-in-law. purpose of this notice is to bring all the interested persons within
i. On that same day (June 5), RTC granted Wife’s motion to the court's jurisdiction so that the judgment therein becomes
be appointed as special administratrix binding on all the world.
b. RTC issued another order (June 8) appointing Deputy Sheriffs c. Where no notice as required by Section 3, Rule 79 has been given
together with some militarymen and/or policemen to assist Wife in to persons believed to have an interest in the estate of the
preserving the estate of Husband. deceased person; the proceeding for the settlement of the estate is
5. When Wife and Sheriffs tried to enforce the above order (4b) and tried to void and should be annulled. The requirement as to notice is
take the subject vehicles, Father-in-law resisted resisted saying that they essential to the validity of the proceeding in order that no person
were his personal properties. may be deprived of his right to property without due process of law.
a. According to Father-in-law, this resulted in a near shoot-out. i. Notice through publication of the petition for the settlement
6. Father-in-law now contends that the June 5 order is a patent nullity, the RTC of the estate of a deceased person is jurisdictional.
not having acquired jurisdiction to appoint a special administratrix because 3. Here, no notice as mandated by section 3, Rule 79 was caused to be given
the petition for the settlement of the estate was not yet set for hearing and by the probate court before it acted on the motions of the Wife to be
published for 3 consecutive weeks (Rules of Court). He also stresses that appointed as special administratrix, to issue a writ of possession of alleged
the appointment of a special administratrix constitutes an abuse of discretion properties of the deceased and to grant Wife motion for assistance to
for having been made without giving him and other parties an opportunity to preserve the estate.
oppose said appointment. 4. The "explanation" which we required of the RTC Judge for his apparent
7. As to the June 8 order, Father-in-law alleges that the immediate grant of the haste is that “it would be to the best interest of the estate without unduly
motion praying for the court's assistance in the preservation of the estate prejudicing any interested party or third person...any delay might have
without notice to him, and its immediate implementation on the very same prejudiced the estate for the properties may be lost, wasted or dissipated.”
day. a. This explanation does not sufficiently explain the disregard of the
ISSUE: Rule. If indeed, RTC had the welfare of both the estate and the
Whether probate court may appoint a special administratrix and issue a writ of
22
person who have interest in the estate, then it could have caused
notice to be given immediately.
b. Father-in-law as creditor of the estate has a similar interest in the
preservation of the estate as the Wife, thus notice is needed.
c. If emergency situations threatening the dissipation of the assets of
an estate justify a court's immediately taking some kind of
temporary action even without the required notice, no such
emergency is shown in this case.
DISPOSITION:
Remanded to RTC (but reraffled because respondent judge inhibited)
DOCTRINE:
Where no notice as required by Section 3, Rule 79 has been given to persons
believed to have an interest in the estate of the deceased person; the proceeding for
the settlement of the estate and the orders are void and should be annulled.
23

Special Proceedings 3d

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Special Proceedings 3d

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Special Proceedings 3d

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS ATTY.

RULE 79 (OPPOSING ISSUANCE OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY; PETITION

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the herein assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is

DOCTRINE: On the matter of appointment of administrator of the estate of the

GABRIEL V. CA 2. In the appointment of the administrator of the estate of a deceased

DISPOSITION: MODIFIED by AFFIRMING the validity of the appointment of

DOCTRINE: The purpose of having co-administrators is to have the benefit of their

ISSUE: W/N Court erred in not appointing her as administratrix? No

eventually legally adopted by decedent's husband, the original oppositor to

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court

nor adverse interests necessitate the discounting of the order of

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is PARTIALLY

DISPOSITION: Wherefore, the dismissal order appealed from is hereby

TAYAG V. TAYAG-GALLOR a. The right of respondent to maintain such a suit is dependent

1. It is admitted that Francisco Varela Calderon was a bachelor, a citizen of the

possession of alleged properties of a decedent for the preservation of the estate in a

You might also like