CHUA v. ABSOLUTE MNGT. CORP. 5.

TheRTCJudgedeniedAMCsmotion,rulingthatitfoundnomeritinthe
Oct. 16, 2003 | Carpio, J. | Petition for Review on Certiorari | Rule 87 motionasitineffectseekstoengageinafishingexpeditionforevidencetobe
PETITIONERS: BETTY T. CHUA, JENNIFER T. CHUA-LOCSIN, usedagainsttheadministratrixandotherswhomitseekstoexamine,itbeingthe
BENISON T. CHUA, and BALDWIN T. CHUA consensusoftheCourtthattheRulesofProceduredonotallowthefishingof
RESPONDENTS: ABSOLUTE MNGT. CORP. and CA
evidencetobeusedagainsttheadverseparty.
SUMMARY: Betty Chua was appointed the Administratix of her late husbands
intestate estate. Absolute Mngt. Corp. (AMC), one of the creditors of her 6. Aggrieved,AMCfiledapetitionforcertiorariandmandamuswiththeCA,
husband, noted that the shares of stock of the deceased in two companies were claimingthatthetrialcourtcommittedGADinthatthetrialcourtdeprivedAMC
not included in the inventory that Betty submitted to the trial court. Suspecting oftherighttoshowthatthedocumentspresentedbypetitionerswerefictitiousto
that the documents Betty submitted to explain the non-inclusion (transfer by the theprejudiceofAMC.
decedent) were spurious, AMC filed a Motion to Examine the Supposed 7. Duringthehearing,counselforAMCpresentedthefollowingevidenceto
Transferees, based on Rule 87, Sec. 6. The RTC denied such motion, ruling it to
supportitsassertionthatthetransfersoftheshareswerespurious:
be a fishing expedition, which is not allowed. AMC filed a petition for certiorari a. CertificationfromtheOfficeoftheClerkofCourtofRTCPasayCitythatAtty.
with the CA, imputing GAD to the RTC Judge. Both the CA and the SC ruled in
Maagad(thenotarypublicwhonotarizedthequestionedSecretarysCertificateand
AMCs favor.
DeedsofAssignmentofSharesofStock)isnotlistedintheRollofNotariesPublicfor
DOCTRINE: Ratio1-3.
theCityofPasayparticularlyfortheperiodof19931995and19982000.
b. CertificationfromtheClerkofCourtofRTCMakatiCitythatthequestioned
FACTS:
SecretarysCertificatewasnotincludedintheNotarialReportofAtty.Velascoforthe
1. Sometimein1999,uponapetitionforlettersofadministrationfiledbytheChuas
years19981999.
withtheRTCPasay,BettyChuawasappointedasadministratrixoftheintestate c. CertificationfromtheClerkofCourtofRTCMakatiCitythatthequestionedDeedsof
estateofherhusband,thedeceasedJoseChua.Thereafter,shesubmittedtothe AssignmentofSharesofStockwerenotincludedintheNotarialReportofAtty.
trialcourtaninventoryofalltherealandpersonalpropertiesofthedeceased. Velascofortheyears19981999.
2. Oneofthecreditorsofthedeceased,AbsoluteManagementCorporation(AMC), 8. TheCAruledinAMCsfavor,pointingoutthatthepresentationofthedeedsof
filedaclaimwiththeestateintheamountofP63,699,437.74.Asadministratrix, assignmentexecutedbythedecedentdoesnotautomaticallynegatetheexistence
Bettytentativelyacceptedsaidamountascorrect,withastatementthatitshallbe ofconcealment.TheCAstatedthatitisacommonoccurrenceinestate
reducedoradjustedasadditionalevidencemaywarrant. proceedingsforheirstoexecutesimulateddeedsoftransferwhichconcealand
3. Intheinterim,AMCnoticedthatthedeceasedssharesofstockswithAyala placepropertiesofthedecedentbeyondthereachofcreditors.TheCAthus
SalesCorporationandAyalaConstructionSupply,Inc.werenotincludedinthe orderedtheRTCJudgetogiveduecoursetoAMCsMotionfortheExamination
inventoryofassets.Asaconsequence,itfiledamotiontorequireBettyto oftheAdministratrixandOthers.
explainwhyshedidnotreportthesesharesofstocksintheinventory.Througha 9. Chuasarguments:
reply,Bettyallegedthattheseshareshadalreadybeenassignedandtransferredto a. WantedtheSCtoruleonWONSec6,Rule87,whichistheprincipalbasisof
otherpartiespriortothedeathofherhusband.Sheattachedthedeedsof AMCsMotion,ismandatoryormerelydirectoryonthetrialcourt.SCsaid
assignmentwhichallegedlyconstitutedproofsoftransfer.TheJudgeaccepted thisperspectivemissesthepoint.(Seeissueforrealissue)
theexplanationasmeritorious. b. CAshouldhavedismissedAbsolutespetitionbecauseofproceduralinfirmities:
4. AMC,suspectingthatthedocumentswerespuriousandsimulated,filedamotion (a)CounselforAMC,nottheproperofficersofAMC,filedtheCertification
fortheexaminationofthesupposedtransferees(administratixandothers).It againstForumShopping;(2)AMCattachedonlyaduplicateoriginalcopyof
premiseditsmotiononSec.6,Rule87,RevisedRulesofCourt,whichstates thechallengedorderofthetrialcourttothepetitionsubmittedtotheCA;and
thatwhenapersonissuspectedofhavingconcealed,embezzled,orconveyed (c)NoproperproofofserviceaccompaniedthepetitionsubmittedtotheCA.
awayanyofthepropertiesofthedeceased,acreditormayfileacomplaintwith
thetrialcourtandthetrialcourtmaycitethesuspectedpersontoappearbeforeit ISSUE: WONtheCAcorrectlyorderedthetrialcourttogiveduecoursetothe
andbeexaminedunderoathonthematterofsuchcomplaint.TheChuasopposed MotionforExamination.YES
themotiononthegroundthatthisprovisionbearsnoapplicationtothecase.

RULING: Petition denied. CA decision affirmed.
RATIO:
1. Sec.6Rule871seekstosecureevidencefrompersonssuspectedofhaving
possessionorknowledgeofthepropertiesleftbyadeceasedperson,orofhaving
concealed,embezzledorconveyedanyofthepropertiesofthedeceased.
2. Thecourtwhichacquiresjurisdictionoverthepropertiesofadeceasedperson
throughthefilingofthecorrespondingproceedingshassupervisionandcontrol
overtheseproperties.Thetrialcourthastheinherentdutytoseetoitthatthe
inventoryoftheadministratorlistsalltheproperties,rightsandcreditswhichthe
lawrequirestheadministratortoincludeinhisinventory.Incompliancewiththis
duty,thecourtalsohastheinherentpowertodeterminewhatproperties,rights
andcreditsofthedeceasedtheadministratorshouldincludeorexcludeinthe
inventory.Anheirorpersoninterestedinthepropertiesofadeceasedmaycall
thecourtsattentionthatcertainproperties,rightsorcreditsareleftoutfromthe
inventory.Insuchacase,itislikewisethecourtsdutytoheartheobservationsof
suchparty.Thecourthasthepowertodetermineifsuchobservationsdeserve
attentionandifsuchpropertiesbelongprimafacietotheestate.
3. However,insuchproceedingsthetrialcourthasnoauthoritytodecidewhether
theproperties,realorpersonal,belongtotheestateortothepersonsexamined.If
aftersuchexaminationthereisgoodreasontobelievethatthepersonexaminedis
keepingpropertiesbelongingtotheestate,thentheadministratorshouldfilean
ordinaryactionincourttorecoverthesame.Inclusionofcertainsharesofstock
bytheadministratorintheinventorydoesnotautomaticallydeprivetheassignees
oftheirshares.Theyhavearighttobeheardonthequestionofownership,when
thatpropertyisproperlypresentedtothecourt.
4. Inthepresentcase,someofthetransfereesofthesharesofstockdonotappearto
beheirsofthedecedent.Neitherdotheyappeartobepartiestotheintestate
1Proceedingswhenpropertyconcealed,embezzled,orfraudulentlyconveyed.Ifanexecutor
oradministrator,heir,legatee,creditor,orotherindividualinterestedintheestateofthe
deceased,complainstothecourthavingjurisdictionoftheestatethatapersonissuspectedof
havingconcealed,embezzled,orconveyedawayanyofthemoney,goods,orchattelsofthe
deceased,orthatsuchpersonhasinhispossessionorhasknowledgeofanydeed,conveyance,
bond,contract,orotherwritingwhichcontainsevidenceofortendstodisclosetheright,title,
interest,orclaimofthedeceased,thecourtmaycitesuchsuspectedpersontoappearbeforeit
andmayexaminehimonoathonthematterofsuchcomplaint;andifthepersonsocited
refusestoappear,ortoansweronsuchexaminationorsuchinterrogatoriesasareputtohim,
thecourtmaypunishhimforcontempt,andmaycommithimtoprisonuntilhesubmitstothe
orderofthecourt.Theinterrogatoriesputtoanysuchperson,andhisanswersthereto,shallbe
inwritingandshallbefiledintheclerksoffice.
proceedings.Thirdpersonstowhomthedecedentsassetshadbeenconveyed
maybecitedtoappearincourtandexaminedunderoathastohowtheycame
intopossessionofthedecedentsassets.Incaseoffraudulentconveyances,a
separateactionisnecessarytorecovertheseassets.
5. Takeninthislight,thereisnoreasonwhythetrialcourtshoulddisallowthe
examinationoftheallegedtransfereesofthesharesofstocks.Thisisonlyfor
purposesofelicitinginformationorsecuringevidencefrompersons
suspectedofconcealingorconveyingsomeofthedecedentspropertiestothe
prejudiceofcreditors.Petitionersadmissionthatthesepersonsarethe
decedentsassigneesdoesnotautomaticallynegateconcealmentofthe
decedentsassetsontheirpart.Theassignmentmightbesimulatedsoastoplace
thesharesbeyondthereachofcreditors.Incasethesharesareeventually
includedintheestate,thisinventoryismerelyprovisionalandisnot
determinativeoftheissueofownership.Aseparateactionisnecessaryfor
determinationofownershipandrecoveryofpossession.
OTHERS:WONthepetitionsubmittedtotheCAsufferedfromprocedural
infirmitieswhichmeritsitsdismissalNO
6. ThepetitionfiledbeforetheCAcontainedacertificateofnonforumshopping
executedbycounselandnotbytheauthorizedofficerofAMC.However,the
subsequentfilingofanaffidavitofnonforumshoppingsignedbythecorporate
directorcuredthisdefect.Aslightdelayinthefilingofanaffidavitofnonforum
shoppingshouldnotdefeattheaction.Whilesubmissionofthecertificateofnon
forumshoppingismandatory,aliberalinterpretationoftherulesismorein
keepingwiththeobjectivetosecureajust,speedyandinexpensivedispositionof
everyactionandproceeding.Substantialcomplianceissufficient.
7. Petitionersclaimthattheattachmentofamereduplicateoriginalcopyofthe
assailedorderviolatestheexpressmandateofSec.1,Rule65,whichstatesthat
thepetitionshallbeaccompaniedbyacertifiedtruecopyofthejudgment,order,
orresolutionsubjectthereof.However,underSection3,Rule46,asamendedby
CircularNo.3998,eitheracertifiedtruecopyoraduplicateoriginalcopymay
beattachedtothepetition.
8. Theaffidavitofserviceexecutedbypetitionerscounselstatingthatheserveda
copyofthepetitionbyregisteredmailtorespondentswiththecorresponding
registryreceiptsconstitutessufficientproofofservice.ThiscomplieswithSec.
13,Rule13.
9. Lastly,petitionersquoteArcegav.Pecsontoquestiontheproprietyoffilinga
 petitionforcertioraribeforetheCA.ThefactsinArcegaarenotonallfours
withthefactsintheinstantcase.InArcega,thejudgegrantedtheexamination
butonlywithrespecttothreeoftheseverallotsinvolved.Inthepresentcase,
therewasanabsoluterefusalbythetrialcourttoconductanexaminationonthe
groundthatitwouldconstituteafishingexpeditionofevidencethatcouldbe
usedagainsttheadministratrix.InArcega,thetrialcourtissuedanorderinfavor
ofthepersonsuspectedofhavingconcealedpropertiesoftheestate
andagainstthespecialadministratrixandthejudicialreceiver.Thespecial
administratrixhadtheremedyoffilinganothercasetorecoversuchpropertiesin
thenameoftheestate.
10. Inthepresentcase,AMCasacreditorofthedecedentfiledthepetitionafterthe
trialcourtdenieditsMotionforexamination.AMCquestionedtherulingin
favoroftheadministratrixandheirsofthedecedent.Althoughasacreditor,
AMCdoeshavetheremedyoffilinganothercasetorecoversuchproperties,its
Motionforexaminationwasintendedmerelytoinvestigateandtaketestimonyin
preparationforanindependentaction.Asidefromtheadministratrixandtheheirs
ofthedecedent,AMCalsosoughttoexaminethesupposedassigneesofthe
decedentsshares,whoarethirdpersonswithrespecttotheprobate
proceedings.TheMotionwasapreparatorymovesanctionedbytheRulesof
Court.ThedenialofAMCsMotionwasaninterlocutoryordernotsubjectto
appeal.Theorderofdenialmay,however,bechallengedbeforeasuperiorcourt
throughapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65.