4. Suntay III vs. Cojuangco-Suntay PDF

Preview

Summary

Download 4. Suntay III vs. Cojuangco-Suntay PDF

Description

Suntay III vs. Cojuangco-Suntay Rule 78 Facts: 1.

On June 4, 1990, the decedent, Cristina died intestate. She was survived by her husband, Federico, and several grandchildren, including herein petitioner Emilio III and respondent Isabel. 2. Cristina (decedent) and Federico begot a child named Emilio I, who predeceased her. 3. This Emilio I during his lifetime had a 1st wife named Isabel Cojuangco, where they begot a children which includes Respondent Isabel Suntay. Emilio and Isabel’s marriage, however, was annulled. 4. Thereafter, Emilio I had children out of wedlock which includes Emilio III the petitioner in this case. 5. Despite the illegitimate status of Emilio III, he was reared ever since he was a mere baby, nine months old, by the spouses Federico and Cristina and was an acknowledged natural child of Emilio I. Significantly, Federico, after the death of his spouse, Cristina, adopted their illegitimate grandchildren, Emilio III. 6. After the death of Decedent, her grandchild Isabel filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration in her favor. 7. Federico (Decedent’s spouse) filed his opposition alleging, among others, that: a. Being the surviving spouse of Cristina, he is capable of administering her estate and he should be the one appointed as its administrator; that as part owner of the mass of conjugal properties left by Cristina, he must be accorded legal preference in the administration thereof. 8. Emilio III filed his Opposition-In-Intervention, which essentially echoed the allegations in his grandfather’s opposition, alleging that Federico, or in his stead, Emilio III, was better equipped than respondent to administer and manage the estate of the decedent, Cristina. Additionally, Emilio III averred his own qualifications that: “[he] is presently engaged in aquaculture and banking; he was trained by the decedent to work in his early age by involving him in the activities of the Emilio Aguinaldo Foundation which was established in 1979 in memory of her grandmother’s father. RTC granted. 9. In the course of the proceedings, Federico died. 10. Trial court rendered a decision appointing herein petitioner, Emilio III, as administrator of decedent Cristina’s intestate estate. 11. Aggrieved, respondent filed an appeal before the CA, which reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC, revoked the Letters of Administration issued to Emilio III, and appointed respondent as administratrix of the intestate estate of the decedent, Cristina. a. That as between the legitimate offspring (respondent) and illegitimate offspring (Emilio III) of decedent’s son, Emilio I, respondent is preferred, being the “next of kin ”referred to by Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, and entitled to share in the distribution of Cristina’s estate as an heir; b. Jurisprudence has consistently held that Article 992 of the Civil Code bars the illegitimate child from inheriting ab intestate from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother. 12. The motion for reconsideration of Emilio III having been denied, he appeals by certiorari to this Court.

Issue: o

Main Issue: Whether the CA correct in granting the letter of administration to Isabel (legitimate grandchild of decedent) instead of Emilio III (illegitimate grandchild of decedent, adopted child and nominated by decedent’s spouse)

Court’s Ruling: No, it is patently clear that the CA erred in excluding Emilio III from the administration of the decedent’s estate. As Federico’s adopted son, Emilio III’s interest in the estate of Cristina is as much apparent to this Court as the interest therein of respondent, considering that the CA even declared that “under the law, Federico, being the surviving spouse, would have the right of succession over a portion of the exclusive property of the decedent, aside from his share in the conjugal partnership. Hence, 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. 



Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court lists the order of preference in the appointment of an administrator of an estate: o SEC. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. —If no executor is named in the will, or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall be granted:  (a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or both, in the discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of kin, requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to serve;  (b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or the person selected by them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or widow, or next of kin, neglects for thirty (30) days after the death of the person to apply for administration or to request that administration be granted to some other person, it may be granted to one or more of the principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve;  (c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be granted to such other person as the court may select. o However, the order of preference is not absolute for it depends on the attendant facts and circumstances of each case. Jurisprudence has long held that the selection of an administrator lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. In the main, the attendant facts and circumstances of this case necessitate, at the least, a joint administration by both respondent and Emilio III of their grandmother’s, Cristina’s, estate. o We cannot subscribe to the appellate court’s ruling excluding Emilio III in the administration of the decedent’s undivided estate. Mistakenly, the CA glosses over several undisputed facts and circumstances:  The underlying philosophy of our law on intestate succession is to give preference to the wishes and presumed will of the decedent, absent a valid and effective will;  Emilio III was reared from infancy by the decedent, Cristina, and her husband, Federico, who both acknowledged him as their grandchild.  Emilio III is a legally adopted child of Federico, entitled to share in the distribution of the latter’s estate as a direct heir, one degree from Federico, not simply representing his deceased illegitimate father, Emilio I. In the appointment of an administrator, the principal consideration is the interest in the estate of the one to be appointed. The order of preference does not rule out the appointment of co-administrators, especially in cases where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or factions be represented in the management of the estates. (Delgado Vda. de De la Rosa v. Heirs of Marciana Rustia Vda. de Damian)

Notes:

...