Santero v. Court of First Instance of Cavite
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Princesita, Federico, and Willie Santero are children of the late Pablo Santero with Felixberta Pacursa. Private respondents Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina, and Miguel Santero are four of seven children of the late Pablo Santero with Anselma Diaz. Pablo Santero died on November 30, 1973, leaving an intestate estate. Procedural History: Private respondents, through their guardian Anselma Diaz, filed a Motion for Allowance for educational expenses, clothing, and medical necessities. Petitioners opposed, arguing the wards were of majority age, no longer schooling, and gainfully employed, and that estate funds were held in trust. The respondent court granted the allowance, citing precedent and the Civil Code provisions on support and education. Petitioners questioned this order via certiorari. Subsequently, private respondents filed another motion to include three more children, which was initially granted but later reconsidered. Petitioners opposed the inclusion of these additional heirs. The Petition: The present Petition for Certiorari questions the respondent court's order granting allowances to Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina, and Miguel Santero, alleging they were not minors and were gainfully employed, and that the court granted the allowance without a hearing and based on misrepresentation regarding their schooling status. Petitioners also argued that the funds were trust funds.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting allowances to Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina, and Miguel Santero despite their alleged majority age and gainful employment. Whether the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the allowance based on allegations of schooling and need when the truth was allegedly otherwise. Whether the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion for allowance without conducting a hearing.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the assailed judgment is affirmed. The private respondents are granted an allowance of P2,000.00 each for tuition fees, clothing materials, and subsistence out of any available funds in the hands of the administrator.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of majority age and gainful employment: The Court held that the fact that private respondents are of age, gainfully employed, or married is of no moment and should not be the determining factor of their right to allowance under Article 188 of the Civil Code. While Rule 83, Section 3 of the Rules of Court limits allowances to the widow and minor or incapacitated children, the New Civil Code (specifically Article 188 and 290) gives the surviving spouse and children, without distinction, the right to receive support during the liquidation of the estate as an advance payment of their shares in the inheritance. Therefore, the substantive right granted by the Civil Code cannot be impaired by a procedural rule. The Court emphasized that the estate of Pablo Santero is substantial, and the allowance granted is insignificant and can be easily replaced from the general fund. On the issue of schooling and need: The Court noted that the guardian admitted some children were not enrolled for the first semester due to lack of funds but would be enrolled upon receiving the allowances. The Court cited Article 290 of the Civil Code, which explicitly states that support includes the education of the person entitled to be supported until completion of their education or training for a trade or vocation, even beyond the age of majority. The respondent court's decision to grant the allowance was based on the precedent set by the court in granting similar motions for school expenses in previous years, acknowledging the need for further education that would have been provided by the deceased father. On the issue of hearing: The Court found that the respondent court did not act without a hearing. The records showed that the Motion for Allowance dated June 30, 1982, contained a Notice of Hearing addressed to the lawyers for the petitioners, setting the hearing for July 8, 1982. The petitioners' lawyer filed an opposition on the same date, indicating receipt and participation. Furthermore, the petition itself admitted that the wards had been granted allowances for school expenses for about eight years, implying a history of such motions being heard and granted. The respondent court merely followed the established precedent of granting similar motions.
Main Doctrine
Allowances for support, including education, may be granted to children from an intestate estate under Article 188 of the Civil Code, even if they are of legal age or gainfully employed, as such allowances are considered advances on their inheritance, and this substantive right cannot be impaired by procedural rules limiting allowances to minors or incapacitated children.