Digest 3 Hilado vs. Belen

3. Quiazon vs. Belen G.R. No.
189121
Facts:
This case started as a Petition for Letters of Administration of the Estate of Eliseo
Quiazon (Eliseo), filed by herein respondents who are Eliseo’s common-law wife and
daughter. The petition was opposed by herein petitioners Amelia Garcia-Quaizon
(Amelia) to whom Eliseo was married. Amelia was joined by her children, Jenneth
Quiazon (Jenneth) and Maria Jennifer Quiazon (Jennifer). Eliseo died intestate. Maria
Lourdes Elise Quiazon (Elise), represented by her mother, Ma. Lourdes Belen
(Lourdes), filed a Petition for Letters of Administration before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Las Piñas City.3 In her Petition docketed as SP Proc. No. M-3957, Elise
claims that she is the natural child of Eliseo having been conceived and born at the time
when her parents were both capacitated to marry each other. Insisting on the legal
capacity of Eliseo and Lourdes to marry, Elise impugned the validity of Eliseo’s
marriage to Amelia by claiming that it was bigamous for having been contracted during
the subsistence of the latter’s marriage with one Filipito Sandico (Filipito). To prove her
filiation to the decedent, Elise, among others, attached to the Petition for Letters of
Administration her Certificate of Live Birth4 signed by Eliseo as her father. In order to
preserve the estate of Eliseo and to prevent the dissipation of its value, Elise sought her
appointment as administratrix of her late father’s estate. Claiming that the venue of the
petition was improperly laid, Amelia, together with her children, Jenneth and Jennifer,
opposed the issuance of the letters of administration by filing an Opposition/Motion to
Dismiss.5 The petitioners asserted that as shown by his Death Certificate, 6 Eliseo was
a resident of Capas, Tarlac and not of Las Piñas City, at the time of his death.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the court of appeals gravely erred in affirming that Eliseo Quiazon
was a resident of Las Pinas and therefore, the petition for letters of administration was
properly filed with the RTC of Las Pinas?
2.Whether or not the court of appeals overlooked the fact that Elise Quiazon has not
shown any interest in the petition for letters of administration?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court finds the petition bereft of merit. Under Section 1, Rule 73 of
the Rules of Court, the petition for letters of administration of the estate of a decedent
should be filed in the RTC of the province where the decedent resides at the time of his
death:
Sec.1. Where estate of deceased persons settled. – If the decedent is an
inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his
will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled, in the
Court of First Instance now Regional Trial Court in the province in which he resides at
the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First
Instance now Regional Trial Court of any province in which he had estate. The court
first taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent, shall exercise
jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. The jurisdiction assumed by a court, so
far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his
estate, shall not be contested in a suit or proceeding, except in an appeal from that
court, in the original case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record.
The court is not inclined to give credence. to the petitioners’ contention that Elise
has not shown any interest in the Petition for Letters of Administration. Section 6, Rule
78 of the Revised Rules of Court lays down the preferred persons who are entitled to
the issuance of letters of administration. An "interested party," in estate proceedings, is
one who would be benefited in the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim
against the estate, such as a creditor. Also, in estate proceedings, the phrase "next of
kin" refers to those whose relationship with the decedent Is such that they are entitled to
share in the estate as distributes. n the instant case, Elise, as a compulsory heir who
stands to be benefited by the distribution of Eliseo’s estate, is deemed to be an
interested party. With the overwhelming evidence on record produced by Elise to prove
her filiation to Eliseo, the petitioners’ pounding on her lack of interest in the
administration of the decedent’s estate, is just a desperate attempt to sway this Court to
reverse the findings of the Court of Appeals. Certainly, the right of Elise to be appointed
administratix of the estate of Eliseo is on good grounds. It is founded on her right as a
compulsory heir, who, under the law, is entitled to her legitimate after the debts of the
estate are satisfied.29 Having a vested right in the distribution of Eliseo’s estate as one
of his natural children, Elise can rightfully be considered as an interested party within
the purview of the law.

Digest 3 Hilado vs. Belen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest 3 Hilado vs. Belen

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Digest 3 Hilado vs. Belen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3. Quiazon vs. Belen G.R. No.

You might also like