Chua vs Court of Appeals Case Digest G.R. No. 116835 ; March 5, 1998 ; 287 SCRA 33

Chua vs Court of Appeals Case Digest 

G.R. No. 116835 ; March 5, 1998 ; 287 SCRA 33

PRINCIPLE/S:

Special Proceedings

a) Contents of petition for letters of administration (Section 2, Rule 79 of the Rules of Court)

(a) jurisdictional facts;

(b) The names, ages, and residences of the heirs and the names and residences of the creditors, of the decedent'

(c) The probative value and character of the property of the estate;.

(d) The name of the person for whom letters of administration are prayed;

But no defect in the petition shall render void the issuance of letters of administration.

b) Jurisdictional facts required in a petition for issuance of letters of administration:

(1) the death of the testator;

(2) residence at the time of death in the province where the probate court is located; and

(3) if the decedent was a non-resident, the fact of being a resident of a foreign country and that the decedent has left an estate in the province where the court is sitting.

c) Who can oppose a petition for administration

Only an interested person may oppose the petition for issuance of letters of administration.

* Interested person - one who would be benefited by the estate such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor; his interest is material and direct, and not one that is only indirect or contingent

FACTS:  Roberto Chua lived out of wedlock with private respondent Vallejo and they begot two sons. Roberto Chua died intestate in Davao City.  Upon the death of Roberto, Vallejo filed with the RTC of Cotabato City a petition for the guardianship and administration over the persons and properties of the two minors.

Herein petitioner Antonietta Garcia Vda. de Chua (petitioner Chua), representing to be the surviving spouse of Roberto Chua, filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of improper venue. Petitioner Chua alleged that at the time of the decedent's death Davao City was his residence, hence, RTC of Davao City is the proper forum. In support of petitioner’s allegation, petitioner presented, among others, a photocopy the marriage contract. Petitioner failed to submit the original copy of the marriage contract.

Vallejo contends that Antonietta Chua is not the surviving spouse of the late Roberto Chua but a pretender to the estate of the latter since the deceased never contracted marriage with any woman until he died.

RTC ruled that petitioner has no personality to file the motion since she failed to establish the validity of marriage. The Order was appealed to the CA, but it decided in favor of herein respondents.

ISSUE/S: WON petitioner Chua has a legal standing to file the motion to dismiss.

HELD: NO. Section 4 of the Rules of Court provide that only an interested person may oppose the petition for issuance of letters of administration. An interested person is one who would be benefited by the estate such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor; his interest is material and direct, and not one that is only indirect or contingent.

In the present case, petitioner was not able to prove her status as the surviving wife of the decedent. The best evidence of marriage is a valid marriage contract which petitioner Chua failed to produce. The photostat copy of the marriage certificate which petitioner presented cannot be considered since this would be a violation of the best evidence rule. Hence petitioner Chua has no legal standing since she is not considered an interested person for not being able to prove that she is the wife of the decedent.