View full case

LERIOU v. LONGA

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute among the heirs of the late Enrique Longa regarding the appointment of an administrator for his estate. Jane Sta. Cruz, the biological mother of illegitimate children Yohanna and Victoria, was appointed as the administratrix by the court. Meanwhile, the petitioners, who are the legitimate children of Enrique, sought to remove Sta. Cruz and appoint Eleptherios L. Longa, Enrique's brother, as the administrator. The petitioners argued that they have a superior right over Sta. Cruz, and that her appointment is invalid since she is not a resident of the Philippines.

Respondent-minors Yohanna Frenesi S. Longa (Yohanna) and Victoria Ponciana S. Longa (Victoria), represented by their mother, Mary Jane B. Sta. Cruz, filed a special proceeding entitled "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Enrique T. Longa Petition for Letters of Administration" with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City. They alleged that Enrique died intestate, leaving properties and surviving petitioners Eleptherios and Stephen and respondents Yohanna and Victoria as his legitimate and illegitimate children, respectively.

The RTC then appointed Mary Jane B. Sta. Cruz as the administratrix of Enrique's estate. Petitioners filed a motion to remove Mary Jane as administratrix and to appoint Eleptherios or his nominee as administrator. They alleged that they were denied due process because they did not receive notice of the petition and accused Mary Jane of neglect and misrepresentation. Respondent-administratrix denied the allegations and stated that she had mailed the petition and court order to the petitioners and coordinated with the Department of Foreign Affairs for their service. She also stated that she did not commit any act of misrepresentation and explained the non-disclosure of some assets of the decedent.

The trial court denied the petitioners' motion to remove respondent-administratrix, stating that she has not shown any sufficient grounds for removal. The court found that respondent-administratrix has complied with her duties as an administratrix and has coordinated with the petitioners. The court also ruled that the non-disclosure of all assets in the initiatory pleading does not affect respondent-administratrix's appointment. The court further stated that respondent-administratrix's status as a pauper litigant and her failure to post a guardian's bond for the minor children is immaterial in this case since the rights of ownership over the properties of the deceased have not been fully settled.

The petitioners then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the decision of the appellate court affirming the denial of their motion to remove respondent-administratrix.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals dispensed with the mandatory and jurisdictional requirements of the Rules of Court in considering the proof of service compliant with the legal requirements.

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in considering the exchange of electronic mails between respondent Sta. Cruz and petitioner Eleptherios as a positive indication that petitioner's heirs Longa were officially served and had personal knowledge of the petition.

  3. Whether the Court of Appeals disregarded the preferential and superior rights of the legitimate children over the illegitimate children of the decedent.

  4. Whether the Court of Appeals disregarded the substantiated grounds raised by petitioner's heirs Longa, showing the unfitness of respondent Sta. Cruz to discharge her duties as administratrix of the estate of the decedent.

  5. Whether the certification against forum shopping signed by Atty. Baquiran without any authority from the petitioners is a valid ground for dismissal of the petition.

  6. Whether the lack of evidence showing that the petitioners were furnished with the Petition for Letters Administration and the RTC Order renders the proceedings null and void.

  7. Whether or not the respondents, as nephews and nieces of the decedent, are entitled to be notified of the probate proceedings.

  8. Whether the publication of the notice of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation is sufficient notice to the interested parties.

  9. Whether the non-resident petitioners and minor respondents are disqualified from administering the decedent's estate.

  10. Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in choosing the respondent-administratrix over the nominee of the petitioners.

  11. Whether there were sufficient grounds to remove the respondent-administratrix.

  12. Whether the respondent-administratrix is required to pay a guardianship bond.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals erred in considering the proof of service of the order compliant with the legal requirements. The Court also erred in considering the exchange of electronic mails as a positive indication of official service. The Court did not disregard the preferential and superior rights of legitimate children over illegitimate children. Rather, the issue of preferential rights was not adequately raised before the Court of Appeals. However, the Court also erred in disregarding the substantiated grounds raised by petitioner's heirs Longa regarding the unfitness of respondent Sta. Cruz to discharge her duties as administratrix.

  2. Yes, the certification against forum shopping signed by Atty. Baquiran without any authority from the petitioners is a valid ground for dismissal of the petition. The Supreme Court clarified that a certification signed by counsel without a special power of attorney (SPA) is a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition. Although the petitioner may submit an SPA later to correct the error, this does not automatically denote substantial compliance. A defective certification is generally not curable by its subsequent correction, and the intent of the rule on non-forum shopping should not be effectively negated.

  3. No, the lack of evidence showing that the petitioners were furnished with the Petition for Letters Administration and the RTC Order does not render the proceedings null and void. Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76 of the Revised Rules of Court provide for the publication of notice and mailing of copies of the notice to heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator. Personal notice under Section 4 is not a jurisdictional requirement but a matter of personal convenience. It is not necessary for the proceedings to be null and void if there is no evidence of personal notice, as long as there is compliance with the publication and mailing requirements. In this case, the e-mails between the respondent-administratrix and one of the petitioners, as well as the stamp "RECEIVED" from the DFA Records Division, can serve as proof that the petitioners received the necessary documents.

  4. The respondents, as nephews and nieces of the decedent, are not entitled to be notified of the probate proceedings. Only compulsory or testate heirs are entitled to be notified under the Rules of Court. The respondent, as the sole heir named in the decedent's will, had no legal obligation to mention the petitioners in the petition for probate or to personally notify them.

  5. The publication of the notice of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation is sufficient notice to the interested parties. Personal notice to the heirs is a matter of procedural convenience and not a jurisdictional requisite. The publication in a newspaper of general circulation enables the court to acquire jurisdiction over all persons interested in the proceedings. The publication is notice to the whole world, including those who were not named as heirs in the petition.

  6. Yes, the non-resident petitioners and minor respondents are disqualified from administering the decedent's estate pursuant to Rule 78, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.

  7. The trial and appellate courts did not err in choosing the respondent-administratrix over the nominee of the petitioners. The interest of the respondent-administratrix in protecting the estate for the benefit of her children with the decedent outweighs the unclear interest of the nominee in the estate.

  8. There were no factual or legal grounds found to remove the respondent-administratrix as administratrix of the estate. The charges of misrepresentation and concealment of assets were cleared by both the trial and appellate courts. The removal of an administrator cannot be based on the whims and caprices of the heirs or beneficiaries.

  9. The respondent-administratrix is not required to pay a guardianship bond in order to discharge her functions as administratrix of the estate.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The court may dispense with strict compliance with the rules of procedure in order to serve the ends of justice.

  • Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations signs the verification, and when the allegations are made in good faith or are true and correct.

  • Certification against forum shopping must be signed by all plaintiffs or petitioners, but under reasonable or justifiable circumstances, the signature of only one substantially complies with the rule.

  • Certification against forum shopping must be executed by the party-pleader, not the counsel, unless the party-pleader is unable to sign and executes a special power of attorney designating counsel to sign on their behalf.

  • A certification against forum shopping must be signed by the petitioner and not the counsel, unless the petitioner is unable to sign for reasonable or justifiable reasons, in which case an SPA designating the counsel to sign on the petitioner's behalf must be executed. A certification signed by counsel without proper authorization is a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition.

  • A defective certification against forum shopping cannot be cured by its subsequent correction. The intent of the rule on non-forum shopping should not be effectively negated.

  • Personal notice of the proceedings to heirs, legatees, and devisees of the testator, as required in Section 4 of Rule 76, is not a jurisdictional requirement but a matter of personal convenience. Compliance with the publication and mailing requirements is sufficient, and the lack of personal notice does not render the proceedings null and void.

  • Probate proceedings are in rem, and the publication of a notice of hearing brings the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.

  • The settlement of an estate, whether testate or intestate, is a proceeding in rem, and the publication requirement serves the purpose of informing all interested parties of the existence of the settlement proceedings.

  • In the appointment of an administrator, the principal consideration is the interest in the estate of the one to be appointed. The order of preference in the appointment of an administrator depends on the attendant facts and circumstances of each case.

  • The preference for the surviving spouse in the administration of the estate will be disregarded if the person enjoying such preferential rights is unsuitable, and the court may appoint another person. The determination of a person's suitability rests in the sound judgment of the court exercising the power of appointment and such judgment will not be interfered with on appeal unless there is an affirmative showing of error (Changcoco-Ruingo v. Ruingo, G.R. No. 160758, November 18, 2013).

  • The findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, are generally binding and conclusive and may not be re-examined by the Supreme Court (Tan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 195515, February 19, 2018).