Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND SPECIAL DIVISION
G.R. No. 183053 October 10, 2012
EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III, Petitioner,
vs.
ISABEL COJUANGCO-SUNTAY, Respondent.

Facts:

ThedecedentCristinaAguinaldoSuntay(Cristina)diedintestateon4June1990.Cristinawas
survivedbyherspouse,Dr.FedericoSuntay(Federico)andfivegrandchildren:threelegitimate
grandchildren,includinghereinrespondent,Isabel;andtwoillegitimategrandchildren,including
petitionerEmilioIII,allbyFedericosandCristinasonlychild,EmilioA.Suntay(EmilioI),
whopredeceasedhisparents.

The illegitimate grandchildren, Emilio III andNenita, were bothrearedfrom infancyby the
spousesFedericoandCristina.Theirlegitimategrandchildren,Isabelandhersiblings,Margarita
andEmilioII,livedwiththeirmotherIsabelCojuangco,followingtheseparationofIsabels
parents,EmilioIandIsabelCojuangco.Isabelsparents,alongwithherpaternalgrandparents,
were involved in domestic relations cases, including a case for parricide filed by Isabel
CojuangcoagainstEmilioI.EmilioIwaseventuallyacquitted.

Inretaliation,EmilioIfiledacomplaintforlegalseparationagainsthiswife,chargingheramong
otherswithinfidelity.Thetrialcourtdeclaredasnullandvoidandofnoeffectthemarriageof
EmilioIandIsabelCojuangcoonthefindingthat:
From February 1965 thru December 1965 plaintiff was confined in the Veterans memorial
Hospital.Althoughatthetimeofthetrialofparricidecase(September8,1967)thepatientwas
alreadyoutofthehospital,hecontinuedtobeunderobservationandtreatment.
ItistheopinionofDr.Aramilthatthesymptomsoftheplaintiffsmentalaberrationclassifiedas
schizophernia (sic) had made themselves manifest even as early as 1955; that the disease
worsenedwithtime,until1965whenhewasactuallyplacedunderexpertneuropsychiatrist(sic)
treatment;thatevenifthesubjecthasshownmarkedprogress,theremainsbereftofadequate
understandingofrightandwrong.
ThereisnocontroversythatthemarriagebetweenthepartieswaseffectedonJuly9,1958,years
afterplaintiffsmentalillnesshadsetin.Thisfactwouldjustifyadeclarationofnullityofthe
marriageunderArticle85oftheCivilCodewhichprovides:
Art.95.(sic)Amarriagemaybeannulledforanyofthefollowingcausesafter(sic)existingat
thetimeofthemarriage:
xxxx
(3)Thateitherpartywasofunsoundmind,unlesssuchparty,aftercomingtoreason,freely
cohabitedwiththeotherashusbandorwife.
Thereisadearthofproofatthetimeofthemarriagedefendantknewaboutthementalcondition
ofplaintiff;andthereisproofthatplaintiffcontinuestobewithoutsoundreason.Thechargesin
thisverycomplaintaddemphasistothefindingsoftheneuropsychiatristhandlingthepatient,
thatplaintiffreallylivesmoreinfancythaninreality,astrongindicationofschizophernia(sic). 4

Intent on maintaining a relationship with their grandchildren, Federico and Isabel filed a
complaintforvisitationrightstospendtimewithMargarita,EmilioII,andIsabelinthesame
speciallowercourt.TheJuvenileDomesticRelationsCourtinQuezonCity(JDRCQC)granted
theirprayerforonehouramonthofvisitationrightswhichwassubsequentlyreducedtothirty
minutes, and ultimately stopped, because of respondent Isabels testimony in court that her
grandparentsvisitscausedherandhersiblingsstressandanxiety. 5

On 27 September 1993, more than three years after Cristinas death, Federico adopted his
illegitimategrandchildren,EmilioIIIandNenita.

On26October1995,respondentIsabel,filedbeforetheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Malolos,
Bulacan,apetitionfortheissuanceoflettersofadministrationoverCristinasestatedocketedas
SpecialProceedingCaseNo.117M95.Federico,opposedthepetition,pointingoutthat:(1)as
thesurvivingspouseofthedecedent,heshouldbeappointedadministratorofthedecedents
estate;(2)aspartownerofthemassofconjugalpropertiesleftbythedecedent,hemustbe
accordedpreferenceintheadministrationthereof;(3)Isabelandhersiblingshadbeenalienated
from their grandparents for more than thirty (30) years; (4) the enumeration of heirs in the
petitionwasincompleteasitdidnotmentiontheotherchildrenofhisson,EmilioIIIandNenita;
(5)evenbeforethedeathofhiswife,Federicohadadministeredtheirconjugalproperties,and
thus,isbettersituatedtoprotecttheintegrityofthedecedentsestate;(6)theprobablevalueof
theestateasstatedinthepetitionwasgrosslyoverstated;and(7)Isabelsallegationthatsomeof
thepropertiesareinthehandsofusurpersisuntrue.

FedericofiledaMotiontoDismissIsabelspetitionforlettersofadministrationontheground
that Isabel had no right of representation to the estate of Cristina, she being an illegitimate
grandchildofthelatterasaresultofIsabelsparentsmarriagebeingdeclarednullandvoid.
However,inSuntayv.CojuangcoSuntay,wecategoricallydeclaredthatIsabelandhersiblings,
havingbeenbornofavoidablemarriageasopposedtoavoidmarriagebasedonparagraph3,
Article85oftheCivilCode,werelegitimatechildrenofEmilioI,whocanallrepresenthimin
theestateoftheirlegitimategrandmother,thedecedent,Cristina.
Undauntedbythesetback,FedericonominatedEmilioIIItoadministerthedecedentsestateon
hisbehalfintheeventlettersofadministrationissuestoFederico.Consequently,EmilioIIIfiled
anOppositionInIntervention,echoingtheallegationsinhisgrandfathersopposition,alleging
thatFederico,orinhisstead,EmilioIII,wasbetterequippedthanrespondenttoadministerand
managetheestateofthedecedent,Cristina.
On13November2000,Federicodied.

Almostayearthereafteroron9November2001,thetrialcourtrenderedadecisionappointing
EmilioIIIasadministratorofdecedentCristinasintestateestate:
WHEREFORE, the petition of Isabel CojuangcoSuntay is DENIED and the Oppositionin
InterventionisGRANTED.

Issue:
WhetherornotEmilioIIIandIsabelmaybothserveascoadministratorsofCristinasestate

Ruling:

No.
Thegeneralruleintheappointmentofadministratoroftheestateofadecedentislaiddownin
Section6,Rule78oftheRulesofCourt:
SEC.6. Whenandtowhomlettersofadministrationgranted. Ifnoexecutorisnamedinthe
will,ortheexecutororexecutorsareincompetent,refusethetrust,orfailtogivebond,ora
persondiesintestate,administrationshallbegranted:
(a)Tothesurvivinghusbandorwife,asthecasemaybe,ornextofkin,orboth,inthediscretion
ofthecourt,ortosuchpersonassuchsurvivinghusbandorwife,ornextofkin,requeststohave
appointed,ifcompetentandwillingtoserve;
(b)Ifsuchsurvivinghusbandorwife,asthecasemaybe,ornextofkin,orthepersonselectedby
them,beincompetentorunwilling,orifthehusbandorwidow,ornextofkin,neglectsforthirty
(30)daysafterthedeathofthepersontoapplyforadministrationortorequestthatadministration
begrantedtosomeotherperson,itmaybegrantedtooneormoreoftheprincipalcreditors,if
competentandwillingtoserve;
(c)Ifthereisnotsuchcreditorcompetentandwillingtoserve,itmaybegrantedtosuchother
personasthecourtmayselect.
Textually,therulelistsasequencetobeobserved,anorderofpreference,intheappointmentof
anadministrator.Thisorderofpreference,whichcategoricallyseeksoutthesurvivingspouse,the
next of kinand the creditors inthe appointment of anadministrator, has beenreinforced in
jurisprudence.8

Theparamountconsiderationintheappointmentofanadministratorovertheestateofadecedent
istheprospectiveadministratorsinterestintheestate. 9 Thisisthesameconsiderationwhich
Section6,Rule78takesintoaccountinestablishingtheorderofpreferenceintheappointmentof
administratorfortheestate.Therationalebehindtheruleisthatthosewhowillreapthebenefitof
a wise, speedy and economical administration of the estate, or, in the alternative, suffer the
consequences of waste, improvidence or mismanagement, have the highest interest and most
influentialmotivetoadministertheestatecorrectly. 10Inall,giventhattherulespeaksofanorder
ofpreference,thepersontobeappointedadministratorofadecedentsestatemustdemonstrate
notonlyaninterestintheestate,butaninterestthereingreaterthananyothercandidate.

Itistothisrequirementofobservationoftheorderofpreferenceintheappointmentof
administratorofadecedentsestate,thattheappointmentofcoadministratorshasbeenallowed,
butasanexception.WeagainrefertoSection6(a)ofRule78oftheRulesofCourtwhich
specificallystatesthatlettersofadministrationmaybeissuedtoboththesurvivingspouseandthe
nextofkin.

The "next of kin" has been defined as those persons who are entitled under the statute of
distributiontothedecedentsproperty(citationsomitted).Itisgenerallysaidthat"thenearestof
kin,whoseinterestintheestateismorepreponderant,ispreferredinthechoiceofadministrator.
Amongmembersofaclassthestrongestgroundforpreferenceistheamountorpreponderance
ofinterest.Asbetweennextofkin,thenearestofkinistobepreferred."(citationsomitted)

Thecollectedteachingisthatmeredemonstrationofinterestintheestatetobesettleddoesnot
ipso facto entitle an interested person to coadministration thereof. Neither does squabbling
amongtheheirsnoradverseinterestsnecessitatethediscountingoftheorderofpreferenceset
forthinSection6,Rule78.Indeed,intheappointmentofadministratoroftheestateofadeceased
person,theprincipalconsiderationreckonedwithistheinterestinsaidestateoftheonetobe
appointed as administrator.31 Given Isabels unassailable interest in the estate as one of the
decedents legitimate grandchildrenandundoubtednearest "next of kin," the appointment of
EmilioIIIascoadministratorofthesameestate,cannotbeademandableright.Itisamatterleft
entirely to the sound discretion of the Court 32 and depends on the facts and the attendant
circumstancesofthecase.33

Emilioisunworthyasadministrator.