Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaTHIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 116835 March 5, 1998ANTONIETTA GARCIA VDA. DE CHUA,
petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEAL !"#c$a% E$&h' D$($)$o*+, HON.
,APAL M. GUIANI, RTC, -ra*ch 1., 1/'h ,01$c$a% R#&$o*, Co'a2a'o
C$'3, a*1 FLORITA A. VALLE,O, a) A14$*$)'ra'r$5 o6 'h# E)'a'# o6
'h# %a'# Ro2#r'o L. Ch0a, respondents.7APUNAN, J.:Assailed before
us in this Appeal by Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
is thedecision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR Sp. No. 33!,
pro"ul#ated on $ April $$4affir"in# the decision of the Re#ional
%rial Court, &ranch 4, of Cotabato City in Special'rocedure
Case No. 33.As culled fro" the records, the follo(in# facts have
been established by evidence)*urin# his lifeti"e, Roberto +i" Chua
lived out of (edloc, (ith private respondent -lorita A. .alle/o
fro" $0! up to $1. 2ut of this union, the couple be#ot t(o
ille#iti"ate children, na"ely, Roberto Rafson Alon3o and Rudyard
'ride Alon3o.2n 41 5ay $$4, Roberto Chua died intestate in *avao
City.2n 4 6uly $$4, private respondent filed (ith the Re#ional
%rial Court of Cotabato City a'etition1 (hich is reproduced
hereunder)7N R8) '8%7%72N -2R *8C+ARA%72N2- 987RS97', G:AR*7ANS97'
2.8R%98 '8RS2NS AN* 'R2'8R%78S 2-57N2RS R2&8R% RA-S2N A+2N;2
S'. 'R2C. N2< 33and R:*=AR* 'R7*8 A+2N;2, allsurna"ed C9:A and
7SS:ANC8 2-+8%%8RS 2- A*57N7S%RA%72N.-+2R7%A A+2N;2
.A++862,'etitionerPETITIONC258S N2> the petitioner assisted by
counsel and unto this 9onorable Court "ost respectfully states).
%hat she is of le#al a#e, -ilipino, "arried but separated fro" her
husband and residin# at ?ue3on Avenue, Cotabato City,
'hilippines@4. %hat so"eti"e fro" $0! up to and until late $1 your
petitioner lived (ith Roberto +i" Chua as husband and (ife and out
of said union they be#ot t(o A4B children, na"ely, Robert Rafson
Alon3o Chua (ho (as born in General Santos City on April 41, $00
and Rudyard 'ride Alon3o Chua (ho (as born in *avao City on Au#ust
3!, $01. A CeroC copy of the birth certificate of each child is
hereto attached as anneC DAD and D&D, respectively.3. %hat the
afore"entioned children (ho are still "inors today are both stayin#
(ith herein petitioner at her address at ?ue3on Avenue, Cotabato
City@4. %hat Roberto +i" Chua, father of the above-"entioned
"inors, died intestate on 5ay 41, $$4 in *avao City.5. %hat the
afore"entioned deceased left properties both real and personal
(orth'5,!!!,!!!.!! consistin# of the follo(in#)aB +ot in Ea,ar,
Cotabato City covered by %C%No. %-4135 (ith an area of 4$! sF. ".
esti"ated at '5!,!!!.!!bB +ot in Ea,ar, Cotabato City covered by
%C%No. %-4134 (ith an area of 343 sF. ". 5!,!!!.!!cB +ot in *avao
City covered by %C%No. %-4G513 (ith an area of 3!3 sF. ".
5!,!!!.!!dB +ot in *avao City covered by %C%No. %-4G514 (ith an
area of 3!3 sF. ". 5!,!!!.!!eB Residential house in Cotabato City
valued at 3!,!!!.!!fB Residential house in *avao City valued at
G!!,!!!.!!#B Car, Colt +ancer (ith 5otor No. 4G33-3 A-G3$3
4!,!!!.!!hB Colt, Galant Super Saloon (ith 5otorNo. 4G30-G&!G5
545,!!!.!!iB Car, Colt Galant (ith 5otor No. 4G54-54*05441
!,!!!.!!/B Reo 7su3u *u"p %ruc, (ith 5otorNo. *AG4!-131G35
35!,!!!.!!,B 9ino *u"p %ruc, (ith 5otor No. 8*!!-%4041 35!,!!!.!!lB
Stoc,holdin#s in various corporations (ith par valueesti"ated at
3,335,!!!.!!%otal '5,!!!,!!!.!!G. %hat deceased Roberto +i" Chua
died sin#le and (ithout le#iti"ate descendants or ascendants,
hence, the above na"ed "inors Robert Rafson Alon3o Chua and Rudyard
'ride Alon3o Chua, his children (ith herein petitioner shall
succeed to the entire estate of the deceased. AArticle $11 of the
Civil Code of the 'hilippinesB.0. %hat the na"es, a#es and
residences of the relatives of said "inors are the follo(in#, to
(it)Names Relationship Ages Residence. Carlos Chua :ncle G! ?ue3on
Avenue,Cotabato City4. Aida Chua Auntie 55 Rosary 9ei#hts,Cotabato
City3. Ro"ulo :y :ncle 4! chile private respondent "ay have alle#ed
in her opposition to the "otion to dis"iss that petition (as for
#uardianship, the fact re"ains that the very alle#ations of the
ori#inal petition un"ista,ably sho(ed a t(in purpose) AB
#uardianship@ and A4B issuance of letters of ad"inistration. As
such, it (as unnecessary for her to republish the notice of hearin#
throu#h a ne(spaper of #eneral circulation in the province. %he
a"ended petition (as filed for the only reason stated in the "otion
for leave) so that theDcase title can properly and appropriately
capture or capsuli3e in clear ter"s the "aterial aver"ents in the
body of the pleadin#s@ thus avoidin# any confusion or "isconception
of the nature and real intent and purpose of this petition,D (hich
(as for #uardianship over the persons and properties of her "inor
children and for the settle"ent of the intestate estate of the
decedent (ho (as their father. 7n other (ords, there bein# no
chan#e in the "aterial alle#ations bet(een the ori#inal and a"ended
petitions, the publication of the first in a ne(spaper of #eneral
circulation sufficed for purposes of co"pliance (ith the le#al
reFuire"ents of notice.5oreover, the appellate court ruled that the
petitionerHs re"edy is appeal fro" the orders co"plained of under
Section AfB, Rule !$ of the Rules of Court, not certiorari and
prohibition.Not satisfied (ith the decision of the Court of
Appeals, petitioner co"es to this Court contendin# that the
appellate court co""itted the follo(in# errors)7%98 ':&+7C
R8S'2N*8N% C2:R% 2- A''8A+S GRA.8+= AN* S8R72:S+= 8RR8* 7N 92+*7NG
%9A% %98 2R7G7NA+ '8%7%72N AAnneC -, 'etitionB >AS -2R A %>7N
':R'2S8, %2 >7%) -2R G:AR*7ANS97' AN* -2R 7N%8S%A%8 8S%A%8
'R2C88*7NGS@77%98 ':&+7C R8S'2N*8N% C2:R% A''8A+S S8R72:S+=
8RR8* 7N 92+*7NG %9A% %98R8 7S N2 N88* %2 ':&+7S9 %98 A58N*8*
'8%7%72N -2R A*57N7S%RA%72N 2- %98 7N%8S%A%8 8S%A%8 %98R8&=
C2N%RA.8N7NG %98 R:+8S 2- C2:R% AN* %98 R:+7NGS 2- %98 S:'R858
C2:R%.777%98 ':&+7C R8S'2N*8N% C2:R% 2- A''8A+S S8R72:S+= 8RR8*
7N N2% N:++7-=7NG %98 2R*8RS AAnneC D'D to D%DB 'R8C7'7%A%8+=
7SS:8* EX-PARTE &= %98 ':&+7C R8S'2N*8N% R8G72NA+ %R7A+
C2:R% 7N %98 7N%8S%A%8 'R2C88*7NGS >7%92:% 'R72R 98AR7NG 2R
N2%7C8 %2 98R87N '8%7%72N8R %98R8&= *8'R7.7NG %98 +A%%8R
AAN%2N78%%A GARC7A .*A. *8 C9:A B 2- *:8 'R2C8SS AN* 2''2R%:N7%= %2
&8 98AR*.7.%98 ':&+7C R8S'2N*8N% C2:R% 2- A''8A+S GRA.8+=
8RR8* 7N S>88'7NG+= 92+*7NG %9A% '8%7%72N8RHS R858*= 7S
A''8A+.157n support of her first assi#n"ent of error, petitioner
sub"its that the Court of AppealsH conclusion that the ori#inal
petition (as one for #uardianship and ad"inistration of the
intestate estate is contradicted by the evidence on hand, assertin#
that the ori#inal petition failed to alle#e and state the
/urisdictional facts reFuired by the Rules of Court inpetitions for
ad"inistration of a decedentHs estate, such as) AaB the last actual
residence of the decedent at the ti"e of his death@ AbB na"es, a#es
and residences of the heirs@ and AcB the na"es and residences of
the creditors of the decedent. 'etitioner also reiterates her
ar#u"ent re#ardin# private respondentHs alle#ed ad"ission that the
ori#inal petition (as one for #uardianship and not for issuance of
letters of ad"inistration, pointin# to the 2pposition to the 5otion
to *is"iss dated 4! 6uly $$4, (here the private respondent
alle#ed.. %hat this petition is for #uardianship of the "inor
children of the petitioner (ho are heirs to the estate of the late
Roberto +. Chua and under Section , Rule $4 of the Rules of Court
the venue shall be at the place (here the "inor resides.16as (ell
as to the state"ents "ade by counsel for the private respondent
durin# the 44 6uly $$4 hearin# on the "otion to dis"iss)A%%=.
R8N*2N)>e filed our opposition to the "otion to dis"iss the
petition because this is a petition for guardianship of minors, not
for intestate proceedings. So this is a case (here the "other
(anted to be appointed as #uardian because she is also the liti#ant
here. &ecause (henever there is an intestate proceedin#s, she
has torepresent the "inors, and under the Rules of Court in any
#uardianship proceedin#s, the venue is at the place (here the "inor
is actually residin#.18%he petition is devoid of "erit.%he title
alone of the ori#inal petition clearly sho(s that the petition is
one (hich includes the issuance of letters of ad"inistration. %he
title of said petition reads)7N R8) '8%7%72N -2R *8C+ARA%72N 2-
987RS97'S, G:AR*7ANS97' 2.8R %98 '8RS2N AN* 'R2'8R%78S 2- 57N2RS
R2&8R%2 A+2N;2 AN* R:*=AR* A+2N;2, all surna"ed C9:A and
7SS:ANC8 2- +8%%8RS 2- A*57N7S%RA%72N.18+i,e(ise, the prayer of the
petition states)4. %hat +etters of Ad"inistration be issued to
herein petition for the ad"inistrationof the estate of the deceased
R2&8R%2 +75 C9:A.%he ori#inal petition also contains the
/urisdictional facts reFuired in a petition for the issuance of
letters of ad"inistration. Section 4, Rule 0$ of the Rules of Court
reads)Sec. 4. Contents of petition for letters of ad"inistration I
A petition for letters of ad"inistration "ust be filed by an
interested person and "ust sho(, so far as ,no(n to the
petitioner)AaB urisdictional facts@AbB %he na"es, a#es, and
residences of the heirs and the na"es and residencesof the
creditors, of the decedentHAcB %he probative value and character of
the property of the [email protected] %he na"e of the person for (ho"
letters of ad"inistration are prayed@!ut no defect in the petition
shall render "oid the issuance of letters of administration.
Ae"phasis oursB.%he /urisdictional facts reFuired in a petition for
issuance of letters of ad"inistration are) AB the death of the
testator@ A4B residence at the ti"e of death in the province (here
theprobate court is located@ and A3B if the decedent (as a
non-resident, the fact of bein# a resident of a forei#n country and
that the decedent has left an estate in the province (here the
court is sittin#.19>hile para#raph 4 of the ori#inal petition
statin#)A4B %hat Roberto +i" Chua, father of the above "entioned
"inors, died intestate on 5ay 41, $$4 in *avao City.failed to
indicate the residence of the deceased at the ti"e of his death,
the o"ission (as cured by the a"ended petitions (herein the sa"e
para#raph no( reads)A4B %hat Roberto +i" Chua, father of the
above"entioned "inors is a resident of Cota#ato Cit$ and died
intestate on 5ay 41, $$4 at *avao City./9 A8"phasis in the
ori#inal.BAll told the ori#inal petition alle#ed substantially all
the facts reFuired to be stated in the petition for letters of
ad"inistration. ConseFuently, there (as no need to publish the
a"ended petition as petitioner (ould insist in her second
assi#n"ent of errors.&e that as it "ay, petitioner has no le#al
standin# to file the "otion to dis"iss as she is not related to the
deceased, nor does she have any interest in his estate as creditor
or other(ise. %he Rules are eCplicit on (ho "ay do so)Sec. 4.
2pposition to petition for ad"inistration I Any interested person,
"ay byfilin# a (ritten opposition, contest the petition on the
#round of inco"petency of the person for (ho" letters of
ad"inistration are prayed therein, or on the #round of the
contestantHs o(n ri#ht to the ad"inistration, and "ay pray that
letters issue to hi"self, or to any co"petent person or persons
na"ed in the opposition..2nly an interested person "ay oppose the
petition for issuance of letters of ad"inistration. An interested
person is one (ho (ould be benefited by the estate such as an heir,
or one (ho has a clai" a#ainst the estate, such as a creditor@ his
interest is "aterial and direct, and not one that is only indirect
or contin#ent./1'etitioner (as not able to prove her status as the
survivin# (ife of the decedent. %he best proof of "arria#e bet(een
"an and (ife is a "arria#e contract (hich Antonietta Chua failed to
produce. %he lo(er court correctly disre#arded the photostat copy
of the "arria#e certificate (hich she presented, this bein# a
violation of the best evidence rule, to#ether (ith other (orthless
pieces of evidence. %he trial court correctly ruled in its 4 Au#ust
$$4 2rder that). . . %ransfer Certificates of %itle, Residence
Certificates, passports and other si"ilar docu"ents cannot prove
"arria#e especially so (hen the petitioner has sub"itted a
certification fro" the +ocal Civil Re#istrar concerned that the
alle#ed "arria#e (as not re#istered and a letter fro" the /ud#e
alle#ed to have sole"ni3ed the "arria#e that he has not sole"ni3ed
said alle#ed "arria#e. . . .//:nder her third assi#n"ent of error,
petitioner clai"s that the trial court issued its orders, AnneCes
D'D to D%D (ithout prior hearin# or notice to her, thus, deprivin#
her of due process.%he orders referred to by petitioner are) 2rder
dated 3 Au#ust $$4 appointin# Ro"ulo+i" :y, first cousin of the
deceased, as special ad"inistrator of the estate@ 2rder dated 3
Au#ust $$4 appointin# private respondent as #uardian over the
person and property of the "inors@ 2rder dated 5 Au#ust $$3,
directin# the transfer of the re"ains of the deceased fro" *avao
City to Cotabato City@ 2rder dated G Septe"ber $$3 directin#
petitioner to turn over a 5itsubishi Gallant car o(ned by the
estate of the deceased to the special ad"inistrator@ and 2rder
dated 41 Septe"ber $$3, authori3in#the sheriff to brea, open the
deceasedHs house for the purpose of conductin# an inventory of the
properties found therein, after the sheriff (as refused entry to
the houseby the driver and "aid of petitioner.Apart fro" the fact
that petitioner (as not entitled to notice of the proceedin#s of
the trial court, not bein# able to establish proof of her alle#ed
"arria#e to the deceased, or of her interest in the estate as
creditor or other(ise, petitioner cate#orically stated in
theinstant petition that on 45 2ctober $$3 she filed a "otion
prayin# for the recall of the letters of ad"inistration issued by
the trial court and another "otion dated 5 Au#ust $$3 prayin# that
the proceedin#s conducted by the trial court be declared as a
"istrial and the court orders relative thereto be set aside and
nullified. 'etitioner further stated that her "otions (ere denied
by the trial court in its 2rder dated 44 Nove"ber 4, $$3 and that
on 3! Nove"ber $$3 she filed a "otion for reconsideration of the
order of denial (hich in turn (as denied by the trial court on 3
*ece"ber $$3.*ue process (as desi#ned to afford opportunity to be
heard, not that an actual hearin# should al(ays and indispensably
be held./3 %he essence of due process is si"ply an opportunity to
be heard./. 9ere, even #rantin# that the petitioner (as not
notified of theorders of the trial court "ar,ed as 8Chibits D'D to
D%,D inclusive, nonetheless, she (as duly heard in her "otions to
recall letters of ad"inistration and to declare the proceedin#s of
the court as a D"istrial,D (hich "otions (ere denied in the 2rder
dated 44 Nove"ber $$3./5 A "otion for the reconsideration of this
order of denial (as also duly heard by the trial court but (as
denied in its 2rder of 3 *ece"ber $$3./6*enial of due process
cannot be successfully invo,ed by a party (ho has had the
opportunity to be heard on his "otion for reconsideration./8As to
the last assi#n"ent of errors, (e a#ree (ith the Court of Appeals
that the proper re"edy of the petitioner in said court (as an
ordinary appeal and not a special civil action for certiorari@
(hich can be availed of if a party has no plain, speedy and
adeFuate re"edy in the ordinary course of la(. 8Ccept for her bare
alle#ation that an ordinary appeal (ould be inadeFuate, nothin# on
record (ould indicate that eCtraordinary re"edy of certiorari or
prohibition is (arranted.-inally, petitioner further ar#ues as
supple"ent to her "e"orandu" that the rulin# of the Court of
Appeals treatin# the Special 'roceedin# No. 33 as one for both
#uardianship and settle"ent of estate is in contravention of our
rulin# in %ome& "s. Imperial,/8 (hich the petitioner Fuotes)%he
distribution of the residue of the estate of the deceased is a
function pertainin# property not to the #uardianship proceedin#s,
but to another proceedin# (hich the heirs are at liberty to
initiate.'etitionerHs reliance on said case is "isplaced. 7n the
%ome& case, the action before thelo(er court (as "erely one for
#uardianship. %herefore said court did not have the /urisdiction to
distribute the estate of the deceased. >hile in the case at bar,
the petition filed before the court (as both for #uardianship and
settle"ent of estate.7N .78> 2- %98 -2R8G27NG, the petition of
petitioner Antonietta Chua is hereby denied.S2 2R*8R8*.Nar"asa,
C'(', Romero and Purisima, ((', concur'Foo'*o'#) Rollo, p. 45.4
Id., at 5.3 Id., at 53.4 Id., at G!.5 Id., at GG-G1.G Id., at
G4-G5.0 Id., at GG-G1.1 Id., at G$.$ Id., at 0.! Id., at !-. Id.,
at 3-1.4 Id., at 44-43.3 Id., at 44.4 Id., at 3-30.5 Id., at 5-G.G
Id., at .0 I#id.1 Id., at 45.$ *ie3 vs. Serra, 5 'hil. 413@ Santos
vs. Castillo, G4 'hil. 4, 5oran, Co""entaries on the Rules of
Court, .ol. 777 $1! ed.4! Id., at G!.4 'ilipinas Shell 'etroleu"
vs. *u"lao, 4!G SCRA 4!.44 Rollo, p. G0.43 'a"antasan n# +un#sod n#
5aynila vs. Civil Service Co""ission, 44SCRA 5!G.44 Roces vs.
Aportadera, 443 SCRA !1.45 Rollo, pp. 44-43.4G Id., at 44.40
Rubenecia vs. Civil Service Co""ission, 444 SCRA G4!@ Rodri#ue3 vs.
'ro/ect G 5ar,et Service Cooperative, 7nc., 440 SCRA 541.41 45 SCRA
113@ 111.
