Ngo The Hua - v - CHUNG KIAT HUA


EN BANC, G.R. No. L-17091, September 30, 1963 | IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED CHUNG LIU, NGO THE HUA, petitioner-appellant,  vs. CHUNG KIAT HUA, LILY CHUNG CHO, BONIFACIO CHUNG SIONG PEK and CHUNG KA BIO, oppositors-appellees, CHUNG KIAT, KANG, oppositor-appellant, PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, special administrator.| LABRADOR, J.

Facts:
1.       On December 7, 1957, Ngo The Hua, claiming to be surviving spouse of the deceased Chung Liu, filed a petition to be appointed administratrix of the estate of Chung Liu.
2.       Her petition was opposed Chung Kiat Hua and three others, all claiming to be children of the deceased Chung Liu by his first wife, Tan Hua. They claim that:
a.       Ngo The Hua is morally and physically unfit to execute the duties of the trust as administratrix
b.       she and the deceased have secured an absolute divorce in Taiwan
c.        prayed the Chung Kiat Hua, allegedly the eldest child of the deceased, be appointed administrator instead.
3.       These oppositors prayer was in turn opposed by Ngo The Hua who claim that the oppositors are not children of Chung Liu.
4.       Chung Kiat Kang, claiming be a nephew of the deceased, filed his opposition to the appointment of either Ngo The Hua or Chung Kiat Hu on the ground that to be appointed they must first prove their respective relationship to the deceased Chung Li and prayed that he be appointed administrator.
5.       The low court found that Ngo The Hua and the deceased were validly divorced by the Taipei District Court, and that Chung Kiat Hua, and the three others are children of the deceased. It issued the order appointing Chung Kiat Hua as administrator of the estate of Chung Liu.
6.       From this order, both the petitioner and Chung Kiat Kang appealed, however, petitioner Ngo The Hua filed a petition to withdraw her appeal stating that she had entered into an amicable settlement with the oppositors-appellees.
7.       Hence only the appeal of oppositor Chung Kiat Kang remains for the consideration of this Court.

Issue: Whether or not the lower court erred in passing upon the validity of the divorce obtained by the petitioner and the deceased and upon the filiation of the oppositors-appellees, such being a prejudgment "since it is well-settled that the declaration of heirs shall only take place after all debts, expenses and taxes have been paid" in accordance with Sec. 1, Rule 91 of the Rules of Court. Held: No.

Ratio:

-          Sec. 1, Rule 91 of the Rules of Court discloses that what the court is enjoined from doing is the assignment or distribution of the residue of the deceased's estate before the above-mentioned obligations chargeable to the estate are first paid. Nowhere from said section may it be inferred that the court cannot make a declaration of heirs prior to the satisfaction of these obligations. It is to be noted, however, that the court in making the appointment of the administrator did not purport to make a declaration of heirs.
-          it is clear from the facts of this case that is was deemed necessary by the lower court to determine the relationship of the parties, as advanced by petitioner and the oppositors-appellees, to be able to appoint an administrator in accordance with the order preference established in Section 5, Rule 79 of the Rules of Court – that letters of administration shall be granted to the surviving spouse, the next of kin, or to any principal creditor, in this order. 
-          what the lower court actual decided and what we also decide is the relationships between the deceased and the parties of claiming the right to be appointed his administrator, to determine who among them is entitled to the administration, not who are his heirs who are entitled to share in his estate.
-          This issue of heirship is one to be determined in the decree of distribution, and the findings of the court in the case at bar on the relationship of the parties is not a final determination of such relationships as a basis of distribution.
-          It is well-settled that for a person to be able to intervene in an administration proceeding concerning the estate of a deceased, it is necessary for him to have interest in such estate. An interested party has been defined in this connection as one who would be benefited by the estate such as an heir, or one who has a certain claim against the estate, such as a creditor. Chung Kiat Kang does not claim of to be a creditor of Chung Liu's estate. Neither is he an heir in accordance with the Civil Code of the Republic of China, the law that applies in this case, Chung Liu being a Chinese citizen. The appellant not having any interest in Chung Liu's estate, either as heir or creditor, he cannot be appointed as co-administrator of the estate, as he now prays.


Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.