UP Law F2021 In the Matter of the Intestate of Cristina

Aguinaldo-Suntay; Emilio A.M. Suntay III v

Isabel Cojuanco-Suntay
Special Proceedings Rules 79 0 85, RRC 2010 Nachura, J.

SUMMARY

The decedent is the grandmother of Emilio III and Isabel. Emilio III is an illegitimate
child, whose father died before his grandmother. He was adopted by his grandparents.
Isabel is a legitimate child, but she refused the affections of her grandparents. After
the grandmother died, Isabel filed petition for letters of admin over the estate.
Federico, husband of decedent, filed his opposition, since he was the spouse and next
of kin. He appointed Emilio III as his substitute if ever. Federico died during course of
proceedings.

SC held that Emilio III was better suited and more entitled to be administrator over
Isabel. Cited Sec. 6, Rule 78. SC said, however, that the order of preference is not
absolute for it depends on the attendant facts and circumstances of each case. Here,
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. This is because of the conflicting claims of the putative heirs, and the
unliquidated conjugal partnership of Cristina and Federico which forms part of their
respective estates. Thus, practical to have joint administration of the subject estate.
But SC clearly favored Emilio III’s appointment as administrator, owing to Emilio III’s
relationship with the grandparents.

FACTS

 The decedent, Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay (Cristina), married to Dr. Federico

Suntay (Federico), died intestate. In 1979, their only son, Emilio Aguinaldo
Suntay (Emilio I), predeceased both Cristina and Federico.The purpose of the
design is to maximize space.
 At the time of her death, Cristina was survived by her husband, Federico, and
several grandchildren, including herein petitioner Emilio A.M. Suntay III
(illegitimate grandchild) and respondent Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay (legitimate
grandchild)
 During his lifetime, Emilio I was married to Isabel Cojuangco, and they begot
three children, namely: herein respondent, Isabel; Margarita; and Emilio II.
Emilio I’s marriage to Isabel Cojuangco was subsequently annulled.
 Also, Emilio I had two children out of wedlock, Emilio III and Nenita Suntay
Tañedo (Nenita), by two different women.
 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. Since marriage between the parents was annulled, respondent and her
siblings Margarita and Emilio II, lived with their mother separately from their
father and paternal grandparents.
 After Emilio I’s death, Federico filed a petition for visitation rights over his
grandchildren: respondent Isabel, Margarita, and Emilio II. Although Federico
was granted one hour of visitation monthly, it was stopped because of a
manifestation filed by respondent Isabel, articulating her sentiments on the
unwanted visits of her grandparents.
  Federico, after the death of his spouse, Cristina, adopted their illegitimate
grandchildren, Emilio III and Nenita.
 Respondent filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration in her
favor. Federico filed his opposition on December 21, 1995. Federico then filed a
Manifestation nominating his adopted son, Emilio III, as administrator of the
decedent’s estate on his behalf, in the event he would be adjudged as the one
with a better right to the letters of administration.
 The trial court granted Emilio III’s Motion for Leave to Intervene considering his
interest in the outcome of the case. Emilio III essentially echoed the allegations
in his grandfather’s opposition.
 In the course of the proceedings, Federico died.
 RTC later appointed petitioner as administrator.
 CA revoked the Letters of Administration issued to Emilio III, and appointed
respondent as administratrix.

RATIO

Who is better qualified to be administrator?

Both in a Joint Administration. As between [respondent] and the oppositor
[Federico], the latter is accorded preference as the surviving spouse under Sec 6(a),
Rule 78, Rules of Court. On the basis of such preference, he vigorously opposed the
appointment of the petitioner and instead nominated [Emilio III], his grandchild and
adopted child. Such nomination, absent any valid and justifiable reason, should not
be imperiously set aside and insouciantly ignored, even after the oppositor [Federico]
has passed away, in order to give effect to the order of preference mandated by law.
Moreover, from the viewpoint of the estate, the nomination of [Emilio III] appear[s]
intrinsically meritorious. For the benefit of the estate and its claimants, creditors, as
well as heirs, the administrator should be one who is prepared, academically and by
experience, for the demands and responsibilities of the position. While [respondent], a
practicing physician, is not unqualified, it is clear to the court that when it comes to
management of real estate and the processing and payment of debts, [Emilio III], a
businessman with an established track record as a manager has a decided edge and
therefore, is in a position to better handle the preservation of the estate.

CA zeroed in on Emilio III’s status as an illegitimate child of Emilio I and, thus, barred
from representing his deceased father in the estate of the latter’s legitimate mother,
the decedent.

RTC is in the right. law on intestate succession is to give preference to the wishes and
presumed will of the decedent, absent a valid and effective will;
2. The basis for Article 992 of the Civil Code, referred to as the iron curtain bar rule, is
quite the opposite scenario in the facts obtaining herein for the actual relationship
between Federico and Cristina, on one hand, and Emilio III, on the other, was akin to
the normal relationship of legitimate relatives;
3. Emilio III was reared from infancy by the decedent and her husband.
4. Federico claimed half of the properties included in the estate of the decedent,
Cristina, as forming part of their conjugal partnership of gains during the subsistence
of their marriage;
5. Cristina’s properties forming part of her estate are still commingled with that of her
husband, Federico, because her share in the conjugal partnership, albeit terminated
upon her death, remains undetermined and unliquidated; and
6. 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.

Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court lists the order of preference in the
appointment of an administrator of an estate. However, the order of preference is
not absolute for it depends on the attendant facts and circumstances of each
case.

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. 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, specially in cases where
justice and equity demand that opposing parties or factions be represented in
the management of the estates, a situation which obtains here.

The subject estate in this case calls to the succession other putative heirs, including
another illegitimate grandchild of Cristina and Federico, Nenita Tañedo, but who was
likewise adopted by Federico, and the two (2) siblings of respondent Isabel, Margarita
and Emilio II. In all, considering the conflicting claims of the putative heirs, and the
unliquidated conjugal partnership of Cristina and Federico which forms part of their
respective estates, we are impelled to move in only one direction, i.e., joint
administration of the subject estate.

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. 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.

FALLO

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.