058 Heirs Of Jose Sy Bang V. Sy.docx

UP Law F2021 SpecPro

058 Heirs of Jose Sy Bang v. Sy 2009 Nachura

Rule 83 Sec 3, FC 133 SUMMARY

In the court having jurisdiction over guardianship proceedings, it directed the petitioners (children of the 1st marriage) to pay the widow’s allowance from the estate of the decedent to the mother (2nd wife) of the respondents. The petitioners now argue that the said court has no jurisdiction to render widow’s allowance as such is within the jurisdiction of the court hearing the settlement of the estate. The SC held that the it is the courthearing the settlement of the estate that has jurisdiction. "The court" referred to in Rule 83, Sec. 3, of the Rules of Court is the court hearing the settlement of the estate. Also crystal clear is the provision of the law that the widow’s allowance is to be taken from the common mass of property forming part of the estate of the decedent. FACTS   







Petitioners: Jose, Julian and Oscar are children of the deceased Sy Bang from his first marriage. Other petitioners include Zenaida and Ma. Emma who are the wife and child of Jose. Respondents: Rosauro and eight others are children of Sy Bang from his second marriage with his surviving spouse respondent Rosita Ferrera -Sy. Sy Bang died intestate in 1971 and in an out-of-court conference, the children of both marriages divided upon themselves the control and management of Sy Bang’s various businesses. o Certain controversies arose which prompted respondent Rolando to file a Complaint of Partition against the petitioners. o Rosita Ferrera-Sy also filed a motion for payment of widow’s allowance. o From the time of Sy Bang’s death until the filing of the motion in 1996, she claimed she was not given any widow’s allowance. She cited Rule 83(3) of the RoC. Petitioners argued that Rule 83(3) is granted only during the settlement of the estate and such “allowance” shall be taken from the “common mass of property” during liquidation. o Since this case is a special civil action for partition under Rule 69, Rosita is not entitled to any widow’s allowance. o The Court granted Rosita’s motion for payment of widow’s allowance. o Petitioners argued that Rosita had already executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay waiving any claims against the petitioners in exchange of a parcel of land and 1 million pesos. Respondents countered that Rosita was no longer in full possession of her mental faculties when she signed the waiver. o Petitioners also argued that under Rule 83(3) a widow’s allowance can only be paid in an estate proceeding. Even if the case for partition be considered as estate proceedings, only the trial court hearing the partition case had exclusive jurisdiction to execute the payment of the allowance. In the meantime, Respondents filed a joint petition for the guardianship of Rosita Ferrer-Sy where Rosauro Sy, who sought to be named special guardian, filed before the guardianship court a motion to order the deposit of the widow’s allowance. o The Court ruled in favor of the deposit of the widow’s allowance. o The petitioners all failed to comply with the ruling. They were all found guilty of contempt of court. The petitioners, who are now Zenaida and Emma, argued that they should not be made to pay the allowance as they did not have any participation in the management of the businesses of Sy Bang. o Also, the said allowance must come from the estate of Sy Bang and not from Jose or any of the latter’s heirs. o They also asked that the Court should equally divide the liability for the widow’s allowance between the children of the first and second marriages. o They also raised the issue of the validity of Rosita’s marriage to Sy Bang. They claimed that the documents proving such were falsified. RATIO

W/N the Guardianship court has exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the deposit of the widow’s allowance Yes. Guardianship court exceeded its jurisdiction. The court hearing the petition for guardianship had limited jurisdiction. It had no jurisdiction to enforce payment of the widow’s allowance ordered by this Court. o It had no jurisdiction to enforce payment of the widow’s allowance. o The “court” cited in Rule 83 (3) is the court hearing the settlement of the estate and it is this court which has jurisdiction over the properties of the estate, to the exclusion of all the other courts. o In a cited case, the court said that the Guardianship Court may order the delivery of the property of the ward to the guardian only if the property clearly belongs to the ward or if the title has been judicially decided. Rule 83, Sec. 3, of the Rules of Court states: SEC. 3. Allowance to widow and family. – The widow and minor or incapacitated children of a deceased person, during the settlement of the estate, shall receive therefrom, under the direction of the court, such allowance as are provided by law. Correlatively, Article 188 of the Civil Code states: Art. 188. From the common mass of property support shall be given to the surviving spouse and to the children during the liquidation of the inventoried property and until what belongs to them is delivered; but from this shall be deducted that amount received for support which exceeds the fruits or rents pertaining to them. Obviously, "the court" referred to in Rule 83, Sec. 3, of the Rules of Court is the court hearing the settlement of the estate. Also crystal clear is the provision of the law that the widow’s allowance is to be taken from the common mass of property forming part of the estate of the decedent. Thus, as evident from the foregoing provisions, it is the court hearing the settlement of the estate that should effect the payment of widow’s allowance considering that the properties of the estate are within its jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other court W/N the respondents are also liable for the payment of the widow’s allowance as heirs of Sy Bang No. The widow’s allowance is chargeable to the estate of Sy Bang and since petitioners are the one holding the properties belonging to Sy Bang, they should pay for the allowance. The court denies the Motion to Include Rosalino Sy, Bartolome Sy, Rolando Sy, and Heirs of Enrique Sy as Likewise Liable for the Payment of Widow’s Allowance as Heirs of Sy Bang In order to effect a partition of properties (so that the other children may be made liable), the issue of ownership or co-ownership must be first resolved in the action for partition. o In the settlement of estate proceedings, the distribution of the estate properties can only be made: (1) after all the debts, funeral charges, expenses of administration, allowance to the widow, and estate tax have been paid; or (2) before payment of said obligations only if the distributees or any of them gives a bond in a sum fixed by the court conditioned upon the payment of said obligations within such time as the court directs, or when provision is made to meet those obligations. That the full extent of Sy Bang’s estate has not yet been determined is no excuse from complying with court’s order on this issue. o Properties of the estate have already been identified, i.e. those in the names of petitioners, thus these properties should be made to answer for the widow’s allowance of Rosita. o In any case, the mount Rosita receives for support will be deducted from her share of the estate.

FALLO WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Petition in G.R. No. 150797 is GRANTED, while the Petition in G.R. No. 114217 is DENIED. The Regional Trial Court of Lucena City is directed to hear and decide Civil Case No. 8578 with dispatch. The Motion to include Rosalino Sy, Bartolome Sy, Rolando Sy, and Heirs of Enrique Sy as Likewise Liable for the Payment of Widow’s Allowance as Heirs of Sy Bang is DENIED. Treble costs against petitioners. SO ORDERED.