heirs of sy bang vs sy

HEIRS OF SY BANG vs. SY et. al. 2009

NOTE: This is based a little on UPLaw 2013 digest.

DOCTRINE: 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 courts.

Nature: Petitions for review on certiorari

Ponente: Nachura

FACTS:

Parties to the case:

a.) 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.b.) 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.

Issues: 1. W/N the Guardianship court has exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the deposit of the widow’s allowance?

2. W/N the respondents are also liable for the payment of the widow’s allowance as heirs of Sy Bang?

Held:1. YES.

The court hearing the petition for guardianship had limited jurisdiction. 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.

2. 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.

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.

DISPOSITION: In view of the delay caused by the petitioners in paying for the allowance, they are ordered to pay the court treble the costs.

VOTES: Carpio, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr. And Peralta concur.

-Dominant Elsewhere