G.R. Nos. 61700-03. September 14, 1987
PRINCESITA SANTERO, FEDERICO SANTERO AND WILLIE SANTERO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, ANSELMA DIAZ, VICTOR, RODRIGO, ANSELMINA, MIGUEL, ALL SURNAMED …
PARAS, J.:
This is a Petition for Certiorari which questions the
order of the respondent court granting the Motion for Allowance filed by
private respondents. Said order reads as
follows:
“Acting on the Motion For Allowance dated June 30, 1982 filed
by Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina and Miguel, all
surnamed Santero, thru their guardian, Anselma Diaz, the Opposition thereto dated July 8, 1982
filed by the oppositors, the Reply to Opposition
dated July 12, 1982 filed by movant Anselma Diaz and the Rejoinder dated July 26, 1982 filed by
the oppositors, the Court was constrained to examine
the Motion For Allowance filed by the herein movant
last year wherein the ground cited was for support which included educational
expenses, clothing and medical necessities, which was granted
and said minors were given an allowance prayed for in their motion.
“In the Motion For Allowance in
question guardian-movant Anselma
Diaz only followed the precedent of the Court which granted a similar motion
last year to be spent for the school expenses of her wards. In their opposition the oppositors
contend that the wards for whom allowance is sought are no longer schooling and
have attained majority age so that they are no longer under guardianship. They likewise allege that the administrator
does not have sufficient funds to cover the said allowance because whatever funds
are in the hands of the administrator, they constitute funds held in trust for
the benefit of whoever will be adjudged as owners of the Kawit
property from which said administrator derives the only income of the intestate
estate of Pablo Santero, et al.
“In the Reply filed by the guardian-movant,
she admitted some of her children are of age and not enrolled for the first
semester due to lack of funds but will be enrolled as soon as they are given the requested
allowances. She cited Article 290 of the
Civil Code providing that:
‘Support is everything that is indispensable for substance,
dwelling, clothing and medical attendance, according to the social position of
the family.
‘Support also includes the education of the person entitled
to be supported until he completes his education or training for some trade or
vocation, even beyond the age of majority.’
citing also Section 3 of Rule 83 of the
Rules of Court which provides:
‘Allowance to widow and family. The widow and minor or incapacitated children
of a deceased person, during the settlement of the estate, shall receive therefrom, under the direction of the Court, such allowance
as provided by law.’
From the foregoing discussion alone, the
Court cannot deviate from its duty to give the allowance sought by the wards,
the fact that they need further education which should have been provided to
them if their deceased father were alive.
“On the allegation
that the funds from which the allowance would be derived are trust
funds, the Court, time and again had emphasized that the estate of the Santeros is quite big and the amount to be released for
allowances is indeed insignificant and which can easily be replaced from its
general fund if the so-called trust fund is adjudicated to the oppositors.
“WHEREFORE, Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina
and Miguel, all surnamed Santero are hereby granted
an allowance of two thousand (P2,000.00) pesos each
for tuition fees, clothing materials
and subsistence out of any available funds in the hands of the administrator
who is ordered to reimburse to them the said amount after this order shall have
become final to enable the oppositors to file their
appeal by certiorari if they so desire within the reglementary period.
“SO ORDERED.
Bacoor, Cavite, July 28, 1982.
ILDEFONSO M. BLEZA
Executive
Judge”
(pp. 35-36, Rollo)
It appears from the records that petitioners Princesita
Santero-Morales, Federico Santero
and Willy Santero are the children begotten by the
late Pablo Santero with Felixberta
Pacursa while private respondents Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina and Miguel all surnamed Santero
are four of the seven children begotten by the same Pablo Santero
with Anselma Diaz.
Both sets of children are the natural children of the late Pablo Santero since neither of their mothers, was married to
their father Pablo. Pablo Santero in turn, who died on November 30, 1973 was the only
legitimate son of Pascual Santero
who died in 1970 and Simona Pamuti
Vda. de Santero
who died in 1976.
Meanwhile before We could act on the instant petition private
respondents filed another Motion for Allowance dated March 25, 1985 with the
respondent court to include Juanita, Estelita and Pedrito all surnamed Santero as
children of the late Pablo Santero with Anselma Diaz praying
that an order be granted directing the administrator Reynaldo C. Evaristo, to deliver the sum of P6,000.00
to each of the seven (7) children of Anselma Diaz as
their allowance from the estate of Pablo Santero. The respondent Court granted the motion of the private respondents but oppositors (petitioners herein) asked the court to reconsidered said Order.
On September 10, 1985,
an Amended Order was issued by respondent Court directing Anselma
Diaz to submit her clarification or explanation as to the additional three (3)
children of Anselma Diaz included in the motion. In compliance therewith Anselma
Diaz filed her “Clarification” stating
among others that in her previous motions, only the last four minor children as
represented by the mother, Anselma Diaz were included in the motion for support and
her first three (3) children who were then of age should have
been included since all her children have the right to receive allowance
as advance payment of their shares in the inheritance of Pablo Santero under Art. 188, of the New Civil
Code.
On October 15, 1985,
petitioners herein filed their Motion to Admit Supplemental Petition
opposing the inclusion of three (3) more heirs.
We denied their “Motion for Extension of Time to file their
Supplemental Petition” as per Our Resolution dated October 23, 1985.
On November 11, 1985, another Order was issued by the respondent
court directing the administrator of the estate to get back the allowance of
the three additional recipients or children of Anselma
Diaz apparently based on the oppositors‘ (petitioners
herein) “Urgent Motion to Direct the Administrator to Withhold Disbursement of
Allowance to the Movants.”
The issues now being
raised in this present Petition are:
1. Whether or not
respondent court acted with abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
granting the allowance to the
respondents Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina and Miguel
– P2,000.00 each despite the fact that all of them are not minors and all are
gainfully employed with the exception of Miguel.
2. Whether or not
respondent Court acted with abuse of discretion in granting the allowance based
on the allegations of the said respondents that the abovenamed
wards are still schooling and
they are in actual need of money to defray their school expenses for 1982-83
when the truth is that they are no longer schooling.
3. Whether or not respondent Court acted with abuse of discretion
in granting
the motion for allowance without conducting a hearing thereon, to
determine the truth of allegations of the private respondents.
Petitioners argue that private respondents are not entitled to
any allowance since
they have already attained majority
age, two are gainfully employed and one is married
as provided for under Sec. 3 Rule 83, of the Rules of Court. Petitioners also allege that there was misrepresentation on the part of the guardian
in asking for allowance for tuition fees, books and other school materials and
other miscellaneous expenses for school term 1982-83 because these wards have
already attained majority age so that they are no longer under guardianship. They further
allege that the administrator of the estate of Pablo Santero
does not have sufficient funds to cover
said allowance because whatever funds are in the hands of the administrator constitute funds
held in trust for the benefit of whoever will be adjudged as owners of the Kawit
properties from where these funds now held by the administrator are derived.
In this connection, the question of whether the private
respondents are entitled to allowance or
not concerns only the intestate estate of the late Pablo Santero and not the intestate estates of Pascual Santero and Simona Pamuti, parents of their
late legitimate son Pablo Santero. The reason for
this is Art. 992 of the New Civil Code which states that “An
illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and
relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit
in the same manner from the illegitimate child.” The question of
whether or not the petitioners and private respondents are entitled to inherit
by right of representation from their grandparents more particularly from Simona Pamuti was settled by Us
in the related case of “Anselma Diaz, et al vs. Felisa Pamuti-Jardin” (G.R.
No. 66574-R) wherein We held that in view of the barrier present in said Art. 992, petitioners and private respondents
are excluded from the intestate
estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
The present petition
obviously lacks merit.
The controlling provision
of law is not Rule 83, Sec. 3 of
the New Rules of Court but Arts.
290 and 188 of the Civil Code reading as follows:
“Art. 290. Support is everything that is indispensable for
sustenance, dwelling, clothing and medical attendance, according to the social
position of the family.
Support also includes the education of the person entitled to be
supported until he completes his education or training for some profession,
trade or vocation, even beyond the age of majority.”
“Art. 188. From the
common mass of property support shall be given to the surviving spouse and to
the children during the liquidation of the inventoried property and until what
belongs to them is delivered; but from this shall be deducted that amount
received for support which exceeds the fruits or rents pertaining to
them.”
The fact that private respondents are of age, gainfully employed,
or married is of no moment and should not be regarded as the determining factor
of their right to allowance under Art. 188.
While the Rules of Court limit allowances to the widow and minor or
incapacitated children of the deceased, the New Civil Code gives the surviving spouse and his/her children without
distinction. Hence, the private
respondents Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina and Miguel all
surnamed Santero are entitled to allowances as
advances from their shares in the inheritance from their father Pablo Santero. Since the
provision of the Civil Code, a substantive law, gives the surviving spouse and
to the children the right to receive support during the liquidation of the
estate of the deceased, such right cannot be impaired by
Rule 83 Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court which is a procedural rule.
Be it noted however that with respect to “spouse,” the same must be the “legitimate
spouse” (not common-law spouses who
are the mothers of the children here).
It is not true that the Motion for Allowance was granted by
respondent Court without hearing. The
record shows that
the “Motion for Allowance” dated June 30, 1982 contains a Notice of Hearing (p.
2, Annex “A”) addressed to the lawyers for the petitioners and
setting the hearing thereof on July 8,
1982 at 9:00 in the
morning. Apparently a copy of said motion was duly
received by the lawyer, Atty. Beltran as he filed an opposition thereto on the
same date of hearing of the motion.
Furthermore even the instant petition
admits that the wards, (petitioners and private respondents as represented by
their respective guardians) “have been granted allowances for school
expenses for about 8 years now.” The respondent court in granting the
motion for allowance merely “followed the precedent of
the court which granted a similar motion last year.” (Annex
“F”) However in previous
years (1979-1981) the “wards” (petitioners and private respondents)
only received P1,500.00 each depending upon the availability
of funds as granted by the court in several
orders. (Annex 1 to Annex 4).
WHEREFORE, in the light of the aforementioned circumstances,
the instant Petition is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed judgment is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Yap, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera,
and Sarmiento,
JJ., concur.
Padilla, J., no part, related
to senior partner of private respondents’ counsel.