Victoria C. Tayag vs Felicidad A.

Tayag-Gallor
FACTS:
Respondent, Tayag-Gallor or TG, filed a petition for the issuance of letters of
administration over the estate of Ismael Tayad.
TG claims she is 1 of 3 illegitimate children of Ismael.
Ismael was married to petitioner but they didn't have any children of their
own.
Ismael died intestate, leaving behind 2 lots and one motor vehicle, both in
possession of petitioner.
Petitioner promised respondent and her brothers 100K each as their share in
the proceeds of the sale of the motor vehicle. Petitioner only gave half.
Respondent alleged that petitioner intends to dispose of the properties of
Ismael to the respondents prejudice,
Petitioner opposed this petition of TG asserting that the properties were
purchased by her using her own money, she even denied all of petitioners
allegations.
Petitioner filed for dismissal for failure to state a cause of action. Petitioner
reiterated that she is the sole owner of the properties by presenting TCTs.
She also averred that it was necessary for respondent to show proof that she
was acknowledged and recognized by Ismael Tayag. There being no such
allegation, the action becomes one to compel recognition. DENIED.
CA also denied petitioners motion and directed the trial court to proceed with the
dispatch.
CA ruled that the allegation of respondent that she is an illegitimate child
suffices for a cause of action, without the need to state that she had been
recognized or acknowledged.
Petitioner came to the SC and asserts that respondent should not be allowed to
prove her filiation in the settlement of Ismael's estate. Because the claim of
filiation should not be allowed to be proved in an action for settlement of an
estate.
ISSUE: Whether respondent's petition for the issuance of letters of administration
sufficiently states a cause of action considering that she merely alleged she is an
illegitimate child?
RULING: YES.
Petition for issuance of letters of administration must be filed by an interested person. An
interested party 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. The interest must be material and
direct.
The petition for the issuance is a suit for the settlement of the intestate estate of Ismael
Tayag. The right of respondent to maintain such a suit is dependent on whether she is
entitled to successional rights as an illegitimate child which may be established through
voluntary or compulsory recognition.
Petitioners ground is essentially based on her contention that by Ismael's death,
respondent can no longer establish her filiation. However, petitioner overlooked the fact
that respondent's successional rights may be established not just by judicial action to
compel recognition but also by proof that she had been voluntarily acknowledged.
Respondent was yet to show her proof of filiation because of petitioner's opposition. So,
there is no way yet to determine if her petition is actually one to compel recognition or

whether she has a material and direct interest to maintain the suit. So, the allegation that
respondent is an illegitimate child suffices even without stating that she has been
recognized or acknowledged.
This petition by petitioner is DENIED.