Suntay vs. Cojuangco-Suntay (October 2012)

HERNANDEZ, Fruzan E.
Suntay vs. Cojuangco-Suntay

(October 2012)
FACTS: The parties in this case are the spouses Federico and Cristina, who died intestate, their only
child Emilio I who predeceased his parents, and their three legitimate grandchildren, including the herein
respondent Isabel, and Emilio’s other two illegitimate children, named Emilio III and Nenita.
The problem arose when the petitioner, Federico, opposed respondent Isabel, for her Petition for Letters
of Administration over the estate of Cristina, Federico’s wife, who died without leaving a will. Federico
filed the same motion on the ground that Isabel had no right of representation to the estate of Cristina, she
being an illegitimate grandchild of the latter as a result of Isabel’s parents’ marriage being declared null
and void.
The contentions of both parties, were: Emilio III has a better rights because he was reared from infancy
by the decedent, Cristina and Federico, that he was legally adopted by the latter, who is thereby entitled to
share in the distribution of the latter’s estate as a direct heir, one degree from Federico, and not simply in
representation of his deceased illegitimate father, Emilio I, among others. However, Isabel contends that
the explicit provisions of Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court on the order of preference for the
issuance of letters of administration cannot be ignored and that Article 992 of the Civil Code must be
followed, and alleged that Emilio III had demonstrated adverse interests and disloyalty to the estate, thus,
he does not deserve to become a co-administrator thereof.
ISSUE: Whether or not Emilio III has better rights to act as administrator of the decedent’s estate than the
herein respondent, Isabel.
HELD: Letters of Administration over the estate of decedent Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay shall solely issue
to respondent Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay
In Suntay v. Cojuangco-Suntay, the Supreme Court categorically declared that Isabel and her siblings,
having been born of a voidable marriage as opposed to a void marriage based on paragraph 3, Article 85
of the Civil Code, were legitimate children of Emilio I, who can all represent him in the estate of their
legitimate grandmother, the decedent, Cristina.
As regards the main issue, as to whether or not Emilio III has a better right to act as the estate
administrator, the general rule in the appointment of administrator of the estate of a decedent is laid down
in Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, which lists a sequence to be observed, an order of preference,
in the appointment of an administrator. This order of preference, which categorically seeks out the
surviving spouse, the next of kin and the creditors in the appointment of an administrator, has been
reinforced in jurisprudence.
The paramount consideration in the appointment of an administrator over the estate of a decedent is the
prospective administrator’s interest in the estate.9 This is the same consideration which Section 6, Rule
78 takes into account in establishing the order of preference in the appointment of administrator for the
estate. The rationale behind the rule is that those who will reap the benefit of 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 influential motive to administer the
estate correctly.10 In all, given that the rule speaks of an order of preference, the person to be appointed
administrator of a decedent’s estate must demonstrate not only an interest in the estate, but an interest
therein greater than any other candidate.
However, mere demonstration of interest in the estate to be settled does not ipso facto entitle an interested
person to co-administration thereof. The principal consideration reckoned with is the interest in said estate
of the one to be appointed as administrator Given Isabel’s unassailable interest in the estate as one of the
decedent’s legitimate grandchildren and undoubted nearest "next of kin," the appointment of Emilio III as
co-administrator of the same estate, cannot be a demandable right. It is a matter left entirely to the
sound discretion of the Court32. Here, Emilio III has turned out to be an unsuitable administrator of the
estate for his failure to make and return full inventory, and by his inaction on two occasions of Federico’s
exclusion of Cristina’s other compulsory heirs, herein Isabel and her siblings, from the list of heirs.Emilio
III’s omission and inaction become even more significant and speak volume of his unsuitability as
administrator as it demonstrates his interest adverse to those immediately interested in the estate of the
HERNANDEZ, Fruzan E.
decedent, Cristina. SC ruled that Emilio III and respondent Isabel have a deep aversion for each other.
That it is highly impractical, nay, improbable, for the two to work as co-administrators of their
grandmother’s estate. More importantly, it appears detrimental to the decedent’s estate to appoint a co-
administrator (Emilio III) who has shown an adverse interest of some kind or hostility to those, such as
herein respondent Isabel, immediately interested in the said estate.
PS: Issuance of letters of administration is simply a preliminary order to facilitate the settlement of a
decedent’s estate, SC pointed out that Emilio III is not without remedies to protect his interests in the
estate of the decedent.

Suntay vs. Cojuangco-Suntay (October 2012)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suntay vs. Cojuangco-Suntay (October 2012)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Suntay vs. Cojuangco-Suntay (October 2012)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HERNANDEZ, Fruzan E.

Suntay vs. Cojuangco-Suntay

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.