ELEUTERIO RIVERA, G.R. No. 189697
as Administrator of
the Intestate
Estate of Rosita L.
Rivera-Ramirez,
Petitioner, Present:
VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,
- versus - PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,*
ABAD,
and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
ROBERT RAMIREZ and
RAYMOND RAMIREZ, Promulgated:
Respondents.
June 27, 2012
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD,
J.:
This case is about a courts adjudication
of non-issues and the authority of the administrator to examine and secure
evidence from persons having knowledge of properties allegedly belonging to the
decedents estate.
The
Facts and the Case
The
spouses Adolfo Ramirez (Adolfo) and Rosita Rivera (Rosita) were married in
1942. Their only child died in
infancy. They acquired during their
lifetime the
On
February 7, 1995 petitioner Eleuterio P. Rivera (Eleuterio) filed a petition
for issuance of letters of administration with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Quezon City covering the estate of Rosita, who allegedly died without a will
and with no direct ascendants or descendants.[1] Eleuterio claimed[2] that
he was Rositas nephew, being the son of her brother Federico. Eleuterio submitted to the intestate court a
list of the names of the decedents other nephews and nieces all of whom
expressed conformity to Eleuterios appointment as administrator of her estate.
On
March 28, 1995 the RTC issued letters of administration appointing Eleuterio as
Rositas estate administrator.[3] On September 6, 1995 Eleuterio submitted an
initial inventory of her properties. On April
18, 1996 he filed in his capacity as administrator a motion with the court to compel
the examination and production of documents relating to properties believed to be
a part of her estate, foremost of which was the Sta. Teresita General Hospital that
respondent Robert Ramirez (Robert) had been managing.[4] Robert claims, together with Raymond Ramirez
(Raymond) and Lydia Ramirez (
On joint motion of the parties, however,
the RTC issued an order on March 26, 1998, suspending the proceedings in the
case pending the resolution of a separate case involving the properties of the
estate.[5] Four years later or on May 16, 2002 Eleuterio,
as administrator of Rositas estate, moved for the revival of the proceedings
and requested anew the production and examination of documents in Roberts possession
relating to Rositas estate. The RTC
apparently never got to act on the motion.
Meantime,
on March 25, 2005 administrator Eleuterio moved for the joint settlement in the
same case of the estates of Rosita and her husband, Adolfo[6] considering
that the spouses properties were conjugal.
Eleuterio expressed willingness to co-administer the late spouses estate
with Adolfos heirs, namely, Raymond, Robert, and Lydia Ramirez. Robert agreed to the joint settlement of the
estate of the deceased spouses but insisted that the court also probate the deceased
Adolfos will of October 10, 1990 which Robert presented.
As
a side issue, Robert initially retained the services of Atty. Antonio Pacheo to
represent him in the estate case. The
lawyer had previously counseled for the late Adolfo and the hospital. But Robert and Atty. Pacheo soon had a
parting of ways, resulting in the dismissal of the lawyer. Raymond, who did not see eye to eye with his
brother Robert, subsequently retained the services of Atty. Pacheo to represent
him in the case. This created an issue
because Robert wanted the lawyer inhibited from the case considering that the
latter would be working against the interest of a former client.
On July 17, 2006 Eleuterio, as
administrator of Rositas estate, reiterated his motion to compel examination
and production of the hospitals documents in Roberts possession. On February 12, 2007 the RTC granted the
administrators motion and ordered Robert to bring to court the books of
account, financial statements, and other documents relating to the operations of the
Robert filed a special civil
action of certiorari before the Court
of Appeals (CA),[7] imputing
grave abuse of discretion by the RTC for allowing the production and examination
of the subject documents and for not inhibiting Atty. Pacheo from the case. On February 17, 2009 the CA rendered
judgment,[8]
annulling the RTCs orders insofar as they granted the production and
examination of the hospitals documents.
Essentially, the CA ruled that Eleuterio and Rositas other collateral
relatives were not her heirs since she had an adopted child in Raymond and
that, consequently, Eleuterio, et al. had no standing to request production of the
hospitals documents or to institute the petition for the settlement of her
estate. The CA affirmed, however, the
non-inhibition of Atty. Pacheo from the case. Eleuterios motion for reconsideration having
been denied, he filed the present petition for review.
Issues
Presented
The case presents two issues:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that Eleuterio and his relatives
were not Rositas heirs and, therefore, had no right to institute the petition
for the settlement of her estate or to seek the production and examination of the
hospitals documents; and
2. Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that Eleuterio, et al.
had no standing to subpoena the specified documents in Roberts possession.
Ruling of the Court
One.
The CA held that based on the article Women Physicians of the World[9] found in the record of the case before
it, the late Rosita, a physician, had adopted Raymond as her child. An adopted child, said the CA, is deemed a
legitimate child of the adopter. This
being the case, Raymonds presence barred Eleuterio and Rositas other collateral
relatives from inheriting intestate from her.[10] A further consequence is that they also did
not have the right to seek the production and examination of the documents
allegedly in Roberts possession.
But, whether or not the late
Rosita had judicially adopted Raymond as her child is a question of fact that
had neither been considered nor passed upon by the RTC in a direct challenge to
the claim of Eleuterio and Rositas other collateral relatives that they have
the right to inherit from her. The
relevant issue before the RTC was only whether or not the duly appointed
administrator of Rositas estate had the right to the production and
examination of the documents believed to be in Roberts possession. Indeed, one of the reasons Robert brought the
special civil action of certiorari
before the CA is that Eleuterio had no right to inspect the requested documents
and have access to Adolfos estate when Eleuterios authority as administrator
extended only to Rositas estate.
The Court understands the CAs
commendable desire to minimize multiple appeals. But the issues regarding the late Rositas supposed
judicial adoption of Raymond as her child and the consequent absence of right
on the part of Eleuterio, et al. to file a petition for the settlement of Rositas
estate were never raised and properly tried before the RTC. Consequently, the CA gravely abused its
discretion in adjudicating such issues and denying Eleuterio and his relatives
their right to be heard on them.
Two.
As for the right of the administrator of Rositas estate to the
production and examination of the specified documents believed to be in
Roberts possession, Section 6, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court provides that
these can be allowed based on the administrators belief that the person named in
the request for subpoena has documents in his possession that tend to show the
decedents right to real or personal property.
Thus:
Section 6. Proceedings
when property concealed, embezzled, or fraudulently conveyed. If an
executor or administrator, heir, legatee, creditor, or other individual
interested in the estate of the deceased, complains to the court having
jurisdiction of the estate that a person is suspected of having concealed,
embezzled, or conveyed away any of the money, goods or chattels of the
deceased, or that such person has in his
possession or has knowledge of any deed, conveyance, bond, contract or other
writing which contains evidence of or tends to disclose the right, title,
interest, or claim of the deceased to real or personal estate, or the last
will and testament of the deceased, the Court may cite such suspected person to
appear before it and may examine him on oath on the matter of such complaint;
and if the person so cited refuses to appear, or to answer on such examination
or such interrogatories as are put to him, the court may punish him for
contempt, and may commit him to prison until he submits to the order of the
court. The interrogatories put to any
such person, and his answers thereto, shall be in writing and shall be filed in
the clerks office. (Emphasis supplied)
The production and examination is
nothing to be afraid of since the intestate court has no authority to decide
who the decedents heirs are in connection with such incident which is confined
to the examination of documents which may aid the administrator in determining
properties believed to belong to the decedents estate. What is more, that court has no authority to
decide the question of whether certain properties belong to the estate or to
the person sought to be examined.[11]
In fact, if after the examination
the court has good reason to believe that the person examined is in possession
of properties that belong to the deceased, the administrator cannot detain the
property. He has to file an ordinary
action for recovery of the properties.[12] The purpose of the production and examination
of documents is to elicit information or secure evidence from persons suspected
of having possession of, or knowledge of properties suspected of belonging to
the estate of the deceased. The
procedure is inquisitorial in nature, designed as an economical and efficient
mode of discovering properties of the estate.[13]
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition, REVERSES
the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 100203 dated February 17, 2009,
and REINSTATES the February 12, 2007
order of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Special Proceedings
Q-95-22919 granting petitioner Eleuterio P. Riveras motion to compel
examination and production of document dated July 17, 2006.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M.
PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
(Per Section 12, R.A. 296,
The
Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended)
* Designated Acting Member in lieu
of Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, per Special Order 1241 dated June 14,
2012.
[1]
Docketed as Special Proceeding Q-95-22919.
[2]
Records, pp. 1-5.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
CA-G.R. SP 100203.
[8]
Penned by Justice Magdangal M. De
[9] Attached to Raymonds pleading
entitled Evidence in Support of Opposition to Motions to Quash and Disqualify
Counsel; records, pp. 549-555.
[10]
Civil Code, Art. 1003.
[11]
Francisco, Rules of Court, Vol. V-B, East Publishing, 1970, p. 245.
[12]
[13]
Supra note 11.