Unnecessary and superfluous

This is a case involving the estates of spouses Berto and Martha, and one of their sons, Jun. The question that arose here is whether the alleged widow of the son Jun can intervene in the estate proceedings of Jun’s parents Martha and Berto, aside from the estate proceedings of Jun.

Martha and Berto had six children; Ruby, Lilia, Lita, Sergio, Tita and Jun. The first to die in the family was Martha, leaving behind a Last Will and Testament. She is survived by Berto and their six children including Jun. At the time of Martha’s death, Jun was already married to Gina and had four children Mando, Rina, Fred and Dino. Four years after Martha’s death, Jun also died, ahead even of his father Berto. At the time of Jun’s death his marriage with his wife Gina had been annulled and he was already living with another woman, Nena.

Then after seven years, it was Jun’s father Berto who died, leaving behind his remaining five children with Martha as well as his four grandchildren from his son Jun.

A petition for the probate of the wills of Berto and Martha was thereafter filed by Mando, the eldest son of Jun, and his Aunt Lilia and Uncle Sergio. Later on, Jun’s Aunts Ruby and Lita also joined the petition as intervenors. Subsequently the Regional Trial Court admitted the wills to probate and appointed Mando as the administrator of their estate.

Then Nena filed a Motion for Intervention in said proceedings, alleging that she has a legal interest in the estate of Berto and Martha, because she is the surviving spouse of Jun, having married him about a year before the latter died. She claimed that her late husband Jun, being one of the children of Martha and Berto, is entitled to 1/7 of the estate of his late mother Martha, and as the surviving spouse, she is entitled to that portion belonging to Jun, which is equivalent to the legitime of the legitimate children of Jun pursuant to Article 887 of the Civil Code. This was opposed by Mando, and the children of Bert and Martha, Ruby, Lilia, Sergio, Lita and Tita who argued that Nena has no legal interest in the probate of the wills of Martha and Bert. And she could not represent Jun, alleging that she was not the legal wife of Jun since she was still married to another man when she married Jun.

Afterwards, Nena also filed a Motion for Intervention in the proceedings for the settlement of Jun’s estate which was initiated by one of Jun’s daughter Zeny, before another RTC. This motion was granted by said RTC. However, the RTC where the settlement of the estate of Martha and Berto denied Nena’s motion to intervene therein. And despite Nena’s motion for reconsideration the RTC still did not allow Nena to intervene in the estate proceedings of Jun’s parents.

So Nena questioned this resolution denying her motion to intervene before the Court of Appeals (CA), and the CA ruled in her favor. According to the CA, Nena should be allowed to intervene because she is the widow of Jun and has an interest in her husband’s share in the estate of his deceased mother Martha, which is yet to be determined. The CA clarified that Nena’s interest is not anchored on her status as daughter-in-law but as heir of Jun. Was the CA correct?

The Supreme Court said no. In the first place, the SC ruled that Nena’s rights and interests, if any, can be fully protected in the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Jun in the other RTC. It is in that proceeding where she can directly litigate her claims as the alleged wife and heir of Jun. Thus her intervention in the probate proceedings of the wills of Martha and Berto pending before another RTC is completely unnecessary and superfluous.

Furthermore, Nena could not inherit from the estate of Jun’s father Berto, because Jun died ahead of him. Only the children of Jun would succeed by right of representation from their grandfather Berto pursuant to Article 972 of the Civil Code which provides in part: “The right of representation takes place in the direct descending line but never in the ascending line.” Moreover, Nena is not related by blood, but only by affinity, to Berto.

In the second place, it should be noted that Nena’s right as surviving spouse of Jun is disputed. The validity of her marriage to Jun is in issue. Mando the son of Jun, who opposed Nena’s motion for intervention in the estate of his father, questioned the validity of the marriage of Nena to his father on the ground that it is bigamous because of Nena’s existing marriage to another man which had not yet been nullified before her marriage to Jun, as shown by the marriage certificate of Nena with such other man, “Rene Santos” at a civil wedding in a Municipal Trial Court of another city.

The decision of the CA and its resolution denying the motion for reconsideration of Mando is therefore reversed and set aside. Nena’s Motion for Intervention and claim in intervention in the probate of the wills of Berto and Martha pending before another RTC are denied (Tirol vs. Nolasco, G.R. 230103, Aug. 27, 2020).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]