FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 230103, August 27, 2020
MARTIN ROBERTO G. TIROL, Petitioner, v. SOL NOLASCO, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
The CA Decision narrates the factual antecedents as follows:Respondent Sol filed with the CA a petition for certiorari questioning the Omnibus Resolution dated June 27, 2013 of RTC-218, which denied her motion for intervention, and the Order dated October 27, 2013, which denied her motion for reconsideration. Petitioner Martin filed an opposition.
On October 10, 1991, Gloria Tirol [(Gloria) died testate]. She was survived by her husband Roberto Tirol, Sr. [(Roberto Sr.)] and their six children namely: Ruth Tirol-Jarantilla [(Ruth)], Cecilia Tirol-Javelosa [(Cecilia)], [Ma. Lourdes] Tirol [(Marilou)], Ciriaco Tirol [(Ciriaco)], Anna Maria Tirol [(Anna)] and Roberto Tirol, Jr. [(Roberto Jr.)]. On April 16, 1995, Roberto Jr. died intestate, and was survived by his four children from his marriage with Cecilia Geronimo, namely [petitioner] Martin, Zharina,7 Francis and Daniel. At the time of his death, Roberto Jr.'s marriage with his wife had been annulled.
On January 8, 2002, Roberto Sr. died testate and was survived by his remaining children Ruth, Cecilia, Marilou, Ciriaco and Anna and his four grandchildren from Roberto Jr.
On April 2, 2002, [petitioner] Martin, Cecilia and Ciriaco x x x filed before x x x [RTC-218] a petition to probate the wills of Gloria and Roberto Sr. x x x Ruth and [Marilou] later joined as intervenors. x x x [RTC-218] admitted to probate the respective wills of Gloria and Roberto Sr. and designated [petitioner] Martin as the Administrator of their estate[s].
On February 25, 2011, [respondent Sol] filed a [Motion for Intervention] stating that she has a legal interest in the estate of Gloria and Roberto Sr. because she is the surviving spouse of Roberto Jr. having married him on July 15, 1994. [Respondent Sol] alleged that the late Roberto Jr., being one of the children of Gloria and Roberto Sr., is entitled to at least 1/7 of the estate of his late mother and as the surviving spouse, she is entitled to that portion belonging to Roberto Jr. which is equivalent to the legitime of the legitimate children of the decedent. According to [her], she is considered a compulsory heir pursuant to Article 887 of the Civil Code and has an interest or claim in the estate of her late husband.
[Petitioner] Martin, the son of the late Roberto Jr., who was appointed as the Administrator, opposed [respondent Sol's] motion for intervention and so did [Anna, Marilou, Ruth and Cecilia]. [The oppositors] mainly argued that [respondent Sol] has no legal interest in the probate of the wills of Gloria and Roberto Sr. and could not represent Roberto Jr., not being a blood relative. [The oppositors] also refused to recognize [respondent Sol] as the legal wife of Roberto Jr.
[On March 15, 2011, respondent Sol filed a motion for intervention8 in the intestate settlement of Roberto Jr.'s estate proceedings ("In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Roberto Lorca Tirol, Ma. Zharina Rita Geronimo Tirol, petitioner" docketed as Spec. Proc. No. Q-95-25497) pending before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 101 (RTC-101). x x x RTC-101 granted the motion to intervene filed by respondent Sol in its Order9 dated May 8, 2012. Apparently, Zharina has been appointed as Administratrix in the intestate estate of Roberto Jr.10
On June 27, 2013, x x x [RTC-218] issued the x x x Omnibus [Resolution] denying, among others, the motion to intervene filed by [respondent Sol], x x x [RTC-218] stated that [respondent Sol] has no legal interest in the case. [The pertinent dispositive portion of the said Omnibus Resolution states:cralawredWHEREFORE, the court hereby resolves to: x x x x
7) DENY the Motion for Intervention and to Admit Attached Claim-in-Intervention;
x x x x
SO ORDERED.11
[Respondent Sol] filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied in the other x x x Order dated October 27, 2013.12
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions dated June 27, 2013 and October 27, 2013, issued by Branch 218 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Said Court is ORDERED to GRANT Petitioner's [(respondent Sol's)] Motion for Intervention and to Admit Claim-in-Intervention.Petitioner Martin filed a motion for reconsideration wherein he argued, among others, that the intervention sought by respondent Sol should not be granted because any interest she may allegedly have in the estate of her alleged husband, Roberto Jr., can be fully ventilated in Spec. Proc. No. Q-95-25497, which involves the judicial settlement of Roberto Jr.'s estate, and her motion for intervention therein has been granted by RTC-101.17 The CA denied petitioner Martin's motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated February 23, 2017. The CA, however, did not traverse the said argument of petitioner Martin.
SO ORDERED.16
The Petition states the following issues19 to be resolved:
1. Whether the CA erred in finding merit to respondent Sol's argument that, as widow of Roberto Jr., she is a compulsory heir of Gloria and Roberto Sr. under Article 887 of the Civil Code.2. Whether the CA erred in failing to consider whether respondent Sol's alleged rights and interests over the estate of Roberto Jr. may be fully protected in Spec. Proc. No. Q-95-25497, which directly involves said estate.3. Whether the CA erred in not giving due consideration that respondent Sol's intervention in Spec. Proc. No. Q-02-46559 will undo 14 years' worth of resolved incidents in said case and further delay the proceedings therein.4. Whether the CA erred in applying Alfelor v. Halasan20 and Uy v. Court of Appeals.21
ART. 887. The following are compulsory heirs:As far as respondent Sol is concerned, she would inherit from Roberto Jr. pursuant to Article 887(3) and part of his estate would be his share in the estate of her mother, Gloria. Respondent Sol could not inherit from the estate of Roberto Sr. because Roberto Jr. predeceased Roberto Sr., his father, and the children of Roberto Jr. would succeed by right of representation from their grandfather pursuant to Article 972 of the Civil Code, which provides, in part: "The right of representation takes place in the direct descending line, but never in the ascending [line]." Moreover, respondent Sol is not related by blood, but only by affinity, to Roberto Sr.
(1) Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their legitimate parents and ascendants;
(2) In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and ascendants, with respect to their legitimate children and descendants;
(3) The widow or widower;
(4) Acknowledged natural children, and natural children by legal fiction;
(5) Other illegitimate children referred to in Article 287. x x x x (807a).
Section 1. Who may intervene. - A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding. (1)The Court in Ongco v. Dalisay31 described intervention as a remedy, as follows:cralawred
Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, not originally impleaded in the proceedings, becomes a litigant therein for a certain purpose: to enable the third party to protect or preserve a right or interest that may be affected by those proceedings. This remedy, however, is not a right. The rules on intervention are set forth clearly in Rule 19 of the Rules of Court xxx.Given the existence of the settlement of Roberto Jr.'s estate proceeding, the question has to be resolved in the negative.
x x x x
It can be readily seen that intervention is not a matter of right, but is left to the trial court's sound discretion. The trial court must not only determine if the requisite legal interest is present, but also take into consideration the delay and the consequent prejudice to the original parties that the intervention will cause. Both requirements must concur, as the first requirement on legal interest is not more important than the second requirement that no delay and prejudice should result. To help ensure that delay does not result from the granting of a motion to intervene, the Rules also explicitly say that intervention may be allowed only before rendition of judgment by the trial court.32
Section 1. When order for distribution of residue made. - When the debts, funeral charges, and expenses of administration, the allowance to the widow, and inheritance tax, if any, chargeable to the estate in accordance with law, have been paid, the court, on the application of the executor or administrator, or of a person interested in the estate, and after hearing upon notice, shall assign the residue of the estate to the persons entitled to the same, naming them and the proportions, or parts, to which each is entitled, and such persons may demand and recover their respective shares from the executor or administrator, or any other person having the same in his possession. If there is a controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases.The court which has jurisdiction to hear and decide any controversy as to who are the lawful heirs of Roberto Jr. or as to the distributive shares to which each is entitled under the law is undoubtedly RTC-101 because it is the court which has first taken cognizance of the settlement of the intestate estate of Roberto Jr.
No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the obligations above-mentioned has been made or provided for, unless the distributees, or any of them, give a bond, in a sum to be fixed by the court, conditioned for the payment of said obligations within such time as the court directs.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 25-46, excluding Annexes.
2 Id. at 49-56. Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, with Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Agnes Reyes-Carpio concurring.
3 Id. at 58-64. Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Danton Q. Bueser concurring.
4 Special First Division and Special Former Special First Division.
5Rollo, pp. 103-117. Penned by Judge Luis Zenon Q. Maceren.
6 Also referred to by the CA Decision as a Resolution. No copy of this Order is attached to the Petition.
7 Ma. Zharina Rita Geronimo Tirol in some parts of the rollo.
8Rollo, pp. 118-123.
9 Id. at 134. Penned by Presiding Judge Evangeline C. Castillo-Marigomen.
10 See Motion for Intervention and Opposition-in-Intervention of respondent Sol in Spec. Proc. No. Q-95 25497, id. at 1 18-123 and 124-132.
11Rollo, pp. 116-117.
12 Id. at 50-51.
13 Id. at 53.
14 Id. at 54.
15 Id. at 55.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 59.
18 Id. at 180-192.
19Rollo, pp. 30-31.
20 G.R. No. 165987, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 451.
21 G.R. No. 102726, May 27, 1994, 232 SCRA 579.
22 Id. at 36.
23 See id.
24 See Opposition to the Motion for Intervention and to Admit Attached Claim-in-Intervention, id. at 95- 102.
25 Supra note 10.
26 Id. at 54.
27 Id. at 50.
28 Id. at 91.
29 Id. at 100.
30 A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC, 2019 Proposed Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which is referred to as the Amended Rules of Civil Procedure, effective May 1, 2020.
31 G.R. No. 190810, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 232.
32 Id. at 238-239. Emphasis and citations omitted.
33 See Solivio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83484, February 12, 1990, 182 SCRA 119, 127.
34Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Heirs of Estanislao Miñoza, G.R. No. 186045, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 520, 531-532. Citations omitted.