Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 64 views

    Emilio Suntay III V Isabel Cojuanco Suntay

    Uploaded by

    yzarvelasco
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that both the petitioner (Emilio III) and respondent (Isabel) should serve as co-administrators of their grandmother Cristina's estate. 2) This was because both had apparent interests as heirs - the petitioner as an adopted son and direct heir, and the respondent as a legitimate granddaughter. 3) A joint administration was necessary given the conflicting claims from other putative heirs to the estate, including another adopted grandchild and the respondents siblings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Emilio Suntay III V Isabel Cojuanco Suntay

    Uploaded by

    yzarvelasco
    64 views8 pages
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that both the petitioner (Emilio III) and respondent (Isabel) should serve as co-administrators of their grandmother Cristina's estate. 2) This was because both had apparent interests as heirs - the petitioner as an adopted son and direct heir, and the respondent as a legitimate granddaughter. 3) A joint administration was necessary given the conflicting claims from other putative heirs to the estate, including another adopted grandchild and the respondents siblings.

    Original Description:

    Emilio Suntay III v Isabel Cojuanco Suntay

    Original Title

    Emilio Suntay III v Isabel Cojuanco Suntay

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The Supreme Court ruled that both the petitioner (Emilio III) and respondent (Isabel) should serve as co-administrators of their grandmother Cristina's estate. 2) This was because both had apparent interests as heirs - the petitioner as an adopted son and direct heir, and the respondent as a legitimate granddaughter. 3) A joint administration was necessary given the conflicting claims from other putative heirs to the estate, including another adopted grandchild and the respondents siblings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    64 views8 pages

    Emilio Suntay III V Isabel Cojuanco Suntay

    Uploaded by

    yzarvelasco
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that both the petitioner (Emilio III) and respondent (Isabel) should serve as co-administrators of their grandmother Cristina's estate. 2) This was because both had apparent interests as heirs - the petitioner as an adopted son and direct heir, and the respondent as a legitimate granddaughter. 3) A joint administration was necessary given the conflicting claims from other putative heirs to the estate, including another adopted grandchild and the respondents siblings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 8

    IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE

    ESTATE OF CRISTINA AGUINALDO-


    SUNTAY;

    EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III


    v.
    ISABEL COJUANGCO-SUNTAY
    G.R. No. 183053 June 16, 2010
    PARTIES
    • Petitioner: Emilio Suntay III – illegitimate son of Emilio I and adoptive
    son and grandson of Federico Suntay, surviving spouse of the
    deceased, illegitimate grandson of the deceased
    • Respondent: Isabel Cojuanco- Suntay, legitimate daughter of Emilio I,
    granddaughter of the deceased.
    • Cristina Suntay: deceased grandmother of the petitioner and
    respondent; the appointment of her estate administrator is the main
    issue in this case.
    • Federico Suntay- Surviving spouse, appoints petitioner as
    administrator in his stead.
    Facts
    • On June 4, 1990, Cristina Suntay dies.
    • On September 27, 1993, Federico adopted their illegitimate grandchildren,
    Emilio III and Nenita
    • On October 26, 1995, respondent filed a petition for the issuance of letters
    of administration in her favor.
    • Federico filed his opposition on December 21, 1995
    • On March 13, 1999, Federico nominated his adoptive son, petitioner as
    administrator of the decedent’s estate on his behalf. Petitioner
    subsequently files a motion to intervene.
    • In the course of the proceedings, on November 13, 2000, Federico died
    Regional trial court and Court of appeals
    • The Regional Trial Court denies the petition of respondent and
    appoints the petitioner as administrator of Cristina’s estate.
    • Respondent files a petition for review on the Court of appeals which
    reversed the decision of the lower court.
    • The Court of appeals zeroed in on the illegitimacy of petitioner to
    represent his deceased father, Emilio I to represent his mother’s
    estate.
    • CA further explained that the appointment of the petitioner as
    administrator by Federico was based upon a suspensive condition
    which was invalidated as Federico died before his appointment as
    administrator.
    Issue: Who between the petitioner and
    respondent is better situated to administer the
    decedent’s estate?
    Supreme Court Ruling
    • The Supreme Court ruled that both the petitioner and respondent
    should be co-administrators of the estate to represent the interests of
    their respective siblings.
    • The CA was wrong to rely on the illegitimacy of the petitioner and the
    as he was an adopted son of Federico and a direct heir which had as
    much apparent interest herein as respondent.
    • The CA should not have treated the appointment of petitioner as a
    suspensive condition as Federico being the surviving spouse has the
    right of succession over the exclusive property of the decedent.
    Rule 78 section 6
    • SEC. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. If no executor is named in the will,
    or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a person
    dies intestate, administration shall be granted:

    • (a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or both, in the discretion
    of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of kin, requests to have
    appointed, if competent and willing to serve;

    • (b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or the person selected by
    them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or widow, or next of kin, neglects for thirty
    (30) days after the death of the person to apply for administration or to request that
    administration be granted to some other person, it may be granted to one or more of the
    principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve;

    • (c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be granted to such other
    person as the court may select
    The selection of administrator lies in the
    sound discretion of the court
    • However, the order of preference is not absolute for it depends on the
    attendant facts and circumstances of each case. Jurisprudence has long
    held that the selection of an administrator lies in the sound discretion of
    the trial court. In the main, the attendant facts and circumstances of this
    case necessitate, at the least, a joint administration by both respondent
    and Emilio III of their grandmothers, Cristinas, estate.
    • The subject estate in this case calls to the succession other putative heirs,
    including another illegitimate grandchild of Cristina and Federico, Nenita
    Taedo, but who was likewise adopted by Federico, and the two (2) siblings
    of respondent Isabel, Margarita and Emilio II. In all, considering the
    conflicting claims of the putative heirs, and the unliquidated conjugal
    partnership of Cristina and Federico which forms part of their respective
    estates, we are impelled to move in only one direction, i.e., joint
    administration of the subject estate.

    You might also like