EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III v.

ISABEL COJUANGCO-SUNTAY
G.R. No. 183053, October 10, 2012.
TOPIC: APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR
FACTS:
Cristina Aguinaldo Suntay, who died intestate and was survived by his spouse, was married to Dr.
Federico Suntay. They have a child named Emilio A. Suntay who predeceased his parents and who was
married to Isabel Cojuangco. They have three legitimate children named Isabel, Margarita and Emilio II.
Emilio II have illegitimate children named Nenita and Emilio III who were reared by their grandparents
Cristina and Federico.
Emilio I and Isabel together with the latters parents and paternal grandparents were involved in
a parricide case filed by Isabel against Emilio I but the latter was acquitted.
In retaliation, Emilio I filed a complaint for legal separation against alleging infidelity in which the
trial court declared the marriage void and have no effect based on the finding of Dr. Aramil that Emilio I
has schizophrenia which had already set in even before his marriage with Isabel Cojuanco and that Emilio
I lives more in fancy than reality.
Subsequently, Frederico and Isabel filed a complaint for visitation rights as to Margarita, Emilio II
and Isabel which were granted but later stopped due to grandparents causing stress and anxiety to them.
Three years after Cristinas death, Frederico adopted the two illegitimate children Emilio III and
Nenita.
Then Isabel filed a petition for issuance of letter of administration before the trial court.
Federico opposed the petition contending that he is the surviving spouse, a part owner of the
mass of the conjugal property, that Isabel and siblings were alienated from their grandparents more than
30 years, enumeration of heirs in petition is incomplete since it excluded the illegitimate children, he had
administered the property even before death of Cristina and that the allegation of Isabel that some of the
properties are in the hands of usurpers is false. Federico filed a motion to dismiss based on Isabels status
as being illegitimate but it was denied based on Conjuangco vs Cojuangco Suntay case declaring her
legitimate child being born out of voidable marriage. Federico nominated Emilio III as administrator to
which the latter filed an opposition-in-intervention in the case.
RTC appointed Emilio III as sole administrator.
On appeal of Isabel to CA, the latter reversed the ruling of RTC resulting to appointment of Isabel
as Administratix.
On appeal to SC by Federico and Emilioo III, the SC decided to appoint Isabel and Emilio III as co-
administrators based on demonstrable interest in the estate of both.
Isabel filed a motion for reconsideration as she wanted to be the sole administratix based on the
order of preference for issuance of letter of administration, Sec. 6 Rule 78 of Rules of Court and Art. 99
of the Civil Code, that Emilio III is an illegitimate grandchild, not next of kin of Cristina and that theres no
basis for joint administration since theres no opposing parties to be represented.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not there joint administration is valid.
2. Whether or not the resolution on the issue of heirship should be resolved in the case.
3. Whether the judgment by Special 2nd Division in Baguio is valid.

RULING:
1. The general rule in the appointment of administrator of the estate of a decedent is found in Sec.
6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court which gives preference in this order, first to surviving husband or
wife or next of kin, or both, in the discretion of the court, or to such person as surviving husband
or wife or the next of kin request to be appointed, second, one or more principal creditors and
third, such other persons as the court may select.

The primordial consideration in appointment of administrator is the interest of a candidate which

is greater than any other candidate.

The reasons for appointing co-administrators based on Philippine and American Jurisprudence
are, to have various representation of interest, representation of opposing interest, estate is large
and for parties to work in harmony for the best interest of the estate.

In the case of Matias vs. Gonzales the court held that the two factions should be represented, in
the Vda. de Dayrit vs Ramolete the court held that the wife as to one half of the conjugal property
of gains, is a compulsory heir entitled to administration of the husbands estate, in the case of
Ventura vs Ventura the court allowed the appointment of surviving spouse and legitimate
children as co-administrators and in the case of Silverio, Sr. vs CA the court ruled for the legitimate
childs appointment as special administrator against the unsuitable surviving spouse. But these
cases cited does not establish absolute right demandable from probate court to be appointed as
administrator because this is only a precedent of authority of court to designate 2 or more special
co-administrator in an estate. The selection must be based upon the independent proprietary
interest and moral circumstances of appointee, not based on representation.

Not because one has an interest in the estate he or she must be appointed as co-administrator,
not because there is squabble among heirs the preference in the appointment of administrator
must be disregarded. The long standing animosity between Isabel and Emilio III and its seeming
impossibility of them to work in harmony and that Emilio III has not looked after the estates
welfare and has acted to the damage and prejudice of estate will not result in disregarding
preference of appointment of administrator but it is for the court to make a choice between one
over the other.

The irrefutable allegation of Isabel as to the inaction of Emilio III on unlawful adjudication of the
estates properties results to his unsuitability to be appointed as administrator due to failure to
make a return and to make a complete inventory which has become a proven fact when Emilio III
has actually filed partial inventories before the probate court and his inaction to the exclusion of
other Cristinas heir from the list of heirs. But Emilio III still have remedies to protect his interest
which are, to complain to the probate court if there is concealment, embezzlement or conveyance
 of assets of the estate, to have notice as to examination and allowance of administrators account
and to petition the probate court for order of distribution as to residue.

1. Judicial restraint refrain the court from making a final declaration of heirship and distribution of it to
heirs because the inheritance must first be liquidated. The estate had hardy been judicially opened
and the proceedings has not yet reached the stage of distribution of the estate which must come after
the inheritance is liquidated. Moreover, Sec. 1, Rule 90 states that no distribution shall be allowed
until the payment of the obligations has been made.

2. The Special Second Division in Baguio is not a different Division created by the Supreme Court. Such
simply a change in venue for the Supreme Courts summer session held during April that year.