G.R. No.

116835 March 5, 1998

ANTONIETTA GARCIA VDA. DE CHUA, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS (Special Eight Division), HON. JAPAL M. GUIANI, RTC, Branch 14, 12th
Judicial Region, Cotabato City, and FLORITA A. VALLEJO, as Administratrix of the Estate of
the late Roberto L. Chua, respondents.

KAPUNAN, J.:

Topic:
Allowed joinder: single petition for the purpose of guardianship and intestate proceedings

Principles:

The jurisdictional facts required in a petition for issuance of letters of administration are: (1)
the death of the testator; (2) residence at the time of death in the province where the probate
court is located; and (3) if the decedent was a non-resident, the fact of being a resident of a
foreign country and that the decedent has left an estate in the province where the court is
sitting.

Sec. 2. Contents of petition for letters of administration — A petition for letters of

administration must be filed by an interested person and must show, so far as known
to the petitioner:

(a) jurisdictional facts;

(b) The names, ages, and residences of the heirs and the names and residences of the
creditors, of the decedent'

(c) The probative value and character of the property of the estate;.

(d) The name of the person for whom letters of administration are prayed;

But no defect in the petition shall render void the issuance of letters of administration.
(emphasis ours).

Only an interested person may oppose the petition for issuance of letters of administration.
An interested person is one who would be benefited by the estate such as an heir, or one
who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor; his interest is material and direct, and
not one that is only indirect or contingent. 21

FACTS:

During his lifetime, Roberto Lim Chua lived out of wedlock with private respondent Florita A. Vallejo
from 1970 up to 1981. Out of this union, the couple begot two illegitimate children, namely,
Roberto Rafson Alonzo and Rudyard Pride Alonzo. On 28 May 1992, Roberto Chua died intestate in
Davao City.

The private respondent Vallejo filed with the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City a Petition  which
1

is reproduced hereunder:

IN RE: PETITION FOR DECLARATION

OF HEIRSHIP, GUARDIANSHIP OVER

THE PERSONS AND PROPERTIES OF MINORS (SON) and Letters of Administration

On 21 July 1992, herein petitioner Antonietta Garcia Vda. de Chua, representing to be the
surviving spouse of Roberto Chua, filed a Motion to Dismiss  on the ground of improper
2

venue. Petitioner alleged that at the time of the decedent's death Davao City was his
residence, hence, the Regional Trial Court of Davao City is the proper forum.

The trial court issued an order setting the hearing of the petition on 14 August 1992 and
directed that notice thereof be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the
province of Maguindanao and Cotabato City and or Davao City.

On 21 July 1992, herein petitioner Antonietta Garcia Vda. de Chua, representing to be the
surviving spouse of Roberto Chua, filed a Motion to Dismiss  on the ground of improper
2

venue. Petitioner alleged that at the time of the decedent's death Davao City was his
residence, hence, the Regional Trial Court of Davao City is the proper forum.

Private respondent filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss  dated July 20, 1992 based on
3

the following grounds:

(1) That this petition is for the guardianship of the minor children of the petitioner who
are heirs to the estate of the late Roberto L. Chua and under Section 1, Rule 92 of the
Rules of Court the venue shall be at the place where the minor resides;

(2) That the above-named minors are residents of Cotabato City:

(3) That the movant in this case has no personality to intervene nor oppose in the
granting of this petition for the reason that she is a total stranger to the minors Robert
Rafson Alonzo and Rudyard Pride Alonzo, all surnamed Chua.

On 31 August 1992, upon motion of private respondent, the trial court issued an order
appointing Romulo Lim Uy, a first cousin of the deceased, as special administrator of the
decedent's estate. 8

On the same day, the trial court, likewise, issued an Order appointing Florita Vallejo as
guardian over the persons and properties of the two minor children. 9

Thereafter, petitioner filed a Motion dated 25 October 1993  praying that the letters of
10

administration issued to Vallejo be recalled and that new letters of administration be issued
to her. The Court of Appeals, in its decision promulgated on 19 April 1994,  denied the14

petition ratiocinating that the original petition filed was one for guardianship of the
illegitimate children of the deceased as well as for administration of his intestate estate.
While private respondent may have alleged in her opposition to the motion to dismiss that
petition was for guardianship, the fact remains that the very allegations of the original
petition unmistakably showed a twin purpose: (1) guardianship; and (2) issuance of letters of
administration.

ISSUE: WON Petitioner has a legal standing to file a motion to dismiss?

HELD: No.

Petitioner has no legal standing to file the motion to dismiss as she is not related to the
deceased, nor does she have any interest in his estate as creditor or otherwise. The Rules
are explicit on who may do so:

Sec. 4. Opposition to petition for administration — Any interested person, may by

filing a written opposition, contest the petition on the ground of incompetency of the
person for whom letters of administration are prayed therein, or on the ground of the
contestant's own right to the administration, and may pray that letters issue to
himself, or to any competent person or persons named in the opposition..

Only an interested person may oppose the petition for issuance of letters of administration.
An interested person is one who would be benefited by the estate such as an heir, or one
who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor; his interest is material and direct, and
not one that is only indirect or contingent.

Petitioner was not able to prove her status as the surviving wife of the decedent. The best
proof of marriage between man and wife is a marriage contract which Antonietta Chua failed
to produce. The lower court correctly disregarded the photostat copy of the marriage
certificate which she presented, this being a violation of the best evidence rule, together with
other worthless pieces of evidence. The trial court correctly ruled in its 21 August 1992 Order
that:

. . . Transfer Certificates of Title, Residence Certificates, passports and other similar

documents cannot prove marriage especially so when the petitioner has submitted a
certification from the Local Civil Registrar concerned that the alleged marriage was
not registered and a letter from the judge alleged to have solemnized the marriage that
he has not solemnized said alleged marriage. . . . 22

Under her third assignment of error, petitioner claims that the trial court issued its orders,
Annexes "P" to "T" without prior hearing or notice to her, thus, depriving her of due process.

The orders referred to by petitioner are: Order dated 31 August 1992 appointing Romulo Lim
Uy, first cousin of the deceased, as special administrator of the estate; Order dated 31
August 1992 appointing private respondent as guardian over the person and property of the
minors; Order dated 5 August 1993, directing the transfer of the remains of the deceased
from Davao City to Cotabato City; Order dated 6 September 1993 directing petitioner to turn
over a Mitsubishi Gallant car owned by the estate of the deceased to the special
administrator; and Order dated 28 September 1993, authorizing the sheriff to break open the
deceased's house for the purpose of conducting an inventory of the properties found therein,
after the sheriff was refused entry to the house by the driver and maid of petitioner.
As to petitioner’s allegation that she was deprived of due process, a part from the fact that petitioner
was not entitled to notice of the proceedings of the trial court, not being able to establish
proof of her alleged marriage to the deceased, , or of her interest in the estate as creditor or
otherwise, petitioner categorically stated in the instant petition that on 25 October 1993 she
filed a motion praying for the recall of the letters of administration issued by the trial court
and another motion dated 5 August 1993 praying that the proceedings conducted by the trial
court be declared as a mistrial and the court orders relative thereto be set aside and nullified.
Due process was designed to afford opportunity to be heard, not that an actual hearing
should always and indispensably be held.