The pivotal issue in this case turns on who, as between Emilio III and respondent, is

better qualified to act as administrator of the decedents estate.

Section 6, Rule 7 of the Rules of !ourt lists the order of preference in the appointment
of an administrator of an estate"
the order of preference is not absolute for it depends on the attendant facts and
circumstances of each case.#$ %urisprudence has lon& held that the selection of an
administrator lies in the sound discretion of the trial court.'( In the main, the attendant
facts and circumstances of this case necessitate, at the least, a )oint administration b* both
respondent and Emilio III of their &randmothers, !ristinas, estate.
+ne final note. !ounsel for petitioner meticulousl* ar&ues that ,rticle $$' of the !ivil
!ode, the successional bar between the le&itimate and ille&itimate relatives of a decedent,
does not appl* in this instance where facts indubitabl* demonstrate the contrar* - Emilio
III, an ille&itimate &randchild of the decedent, was actuall* treated b* the decedent and
her husband as their own son, reared from infanc*, educated and trained in their
businesses, and eventuall* le&all* adopted b* decedents husband, the ori&inal oppositor
to respondents petition for letters of administration.
./ein& the survivin& spouse of !ristina, he is capable of administerin& her estate and he
should be the one appointed as its administrator0 that as part owner of the mass of
con)u&al properties left b* !ristina, he must be accorded le&al preference in the
administration thereof0 that Isabel and her famil* had been alienated from their
&randparents for more than thirt* 12(3 *ears0 that the enumeration of heirs in the petition
was incomplete as it did not mention the other children of his son4,/ namel*" Emilio III
and 5enita S. Ta6edo0 that he is better situated to protect the inte&rit* of the estate of
!ristina as even before the death of his wife4,/ he was alread* the one who mana&ed their
con)u&al properties0 that the probable value of the estate as stated in the petition was
&rossl* overstated 1sic30 and that Isabels alle&ation that some of the properties are in the
hands of usurpers is untrue.$
Rulin&" %oint ,dministration....78ERE9+RE, the petition is :R,5TE;. The ;ecision
of the !ourt of ,ppeals in !,<:.R. != 5o. 7>$>$ is RE=ERSE; and SET ,SI;E.
?etters of ,dministration over the estate of decedent !ristina ,&uinaldo<Sunta* shall
issue to both petitioner Emilio ,.@. Sunta* III and respondent Isabel !o)uan&co<Sunta*
upon pa*ment b* each of a bond to be set b* the Re&ional Trial !ourt, .ranch 7,
@alolos, .ulacan, in Special Aroceedin& !ase 5o. ##7<@<$B. The Re&ional Trial !ourt,
.ranch 7, @alolos, .ulacan is liCewise directed to maCe a determination and to declare
the heirs of decedent !ristina ,&uinaldo<Sunta* accordin& to the actual factual milieu as
proven b* the parties, and all other persons with le&al interest in the sub)ect estate. It is
further directed to settle the estate of decedent !ristina ,&uinaldo<Sunta* with dispatch.
5o costs.
@eanwhile, after a failed attempt b* the parties to settle the proceedin&s amicabl*,
9ederico filed a @anifestation dated @arch #2, #$$$, nominatin& his adopted son, Emilio
III, as administrator of the decedents estate on his behalf, in the event he would be
ad)ud&ed as the one with a better ri&ht to the letters of administration.
RT! ,fter the testimonies of both parties witnesses were heard and evidence on their
respective alle&ations were adduced, the trial court rendered a decision on 5ovember $,
'((#, appointin& herein petitioner, Emilio III, as administrator of decedent !ristinas
intestate estate, to wit"
,&&rieved, respondent filed an appeal before the !,, which reversed and set aside the
decision of the RT!, revoCed the ?etters of ,dministration issued to Emilio III, and
appointed respondent as administratriD of the intestate estate of the decedent, !ristina, to
wit"
n marCed contrast, the !, Eeroed in on Emilio IIIs status as an ille&itimate child of
Emilio I and, thus, barred from representin& his deceased father in the estate of the
latters le&itimate mother, the decedent. +n the whole, the !, pronounced that Emilio III,
who was merel* nominated b* 9ederico, and which nomination hin&ed upon the latters
appointment as administrator of the decedents estate, cannot be appointed as the
administrator of the decedents estate for the followin& reasons"#B
#. The appointment of Emilio III was sub)ect to a suspensive condition, i.e., 9edericos
appointment as administrator of the estate, he bein& the survivin& spouse of !ristina, the
decedent. The death of 9ederico before his appointment as administrator of !ristinas
estate rendered his nomination of Emilio III inoperative0
'. ,s between the le&itimate offsprin& 1respondent3 and ille&itimate offsprin& 1Emilio III3
of decedents son, Emilio I, respondent is preferred, bein& the FneDt of CinF referred to b*
Section 6, Rule 7 of the Rules of !ourt, and entitled to share in the distribution of
!ristinas estate as an heir0
2. %urisprudence has consistentl* held that ,rticle $$'#6 of the !ivil !ode bars the
ille&itimate child from inheritin& ab intestato from the le&itimate children and relatives of
his father or mother. Thus, Emilio III, who is barred from inheritin& from his
&randmother, cannot be preferred over respondent in the administration of the estate of
their &randmother, the decedent0 and
>. !ontrar* to the RT!s findin&, respondent is as much competent as Emilio III to
administer and mana&e the sub)ect estate for she possesses none of the disqualifications
specified in Section #,#7 Rule 7 of the Rules of !ourt.
The motion for reconsideration of Emilio III havin& been denied, he appeals b* certiorari
to this !ourt, raisin& the followin& issues"
,. I5 T8E ,AA+I5T@E5T +9 ,5 ,;@I5ISTR,T+R +9 T8E EST,TE G5;ER
SE!TI+5 6 +9 RG?E 7 +9 T8E RG?ES +9 !+GRT, 78ET8ER ,RTI!?E $$' +9
T8E !I=I? !+;E ,AA?IES0 and
.. G5;ER T8E G5;ISAGTE; 9,!TS 78ERE 8EREI5 AETITI+5ER 7,S
RE,RE; .H T8E ;E!E;E5T ,5; 8ER SA+GSE SI5!E I59,5!H, 78ET8ER
,RTI!?E $$' +9 T8E 5E7 !I=I? !+;E ,AA?IES S+ ,S T+ .,R 8I@ 9R+@
.EI5: ,AA+I5TE; ,;@I5ISTR,T+R +9 T8E ;E!E;E5TS EST,TE.#2
SE!. 6. 7hen and to whom letters of administration &ranted. - If no eDecutor is named in
the will, or the eDecutor or eDecutors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to &ive
bond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall be &ranted"
1a3 To the survivin& husband or wife, as the case ma* be, or neDt of Cin, or both, in the
discretion of the court, or to such person as such survivin& husband or wife, or neDt of
Cin, requests to have appointed, if competent and willin& to serve0
1b3 If such survivin& husband or wife, as the case ma* be, or neDt of Cin, or the person
selected b* them, be incompetent or unwillin&, or if the husband or widow, or neDt of Cin,
ne&lects for thirt* 12(3 da*s after the death of the person to appl* for administration or to
request that administration be &ranted to some other person, it ma* be &ranted to one or
more of the principal creditors, if competent and willin& to serve0
1c3 If there is no such creditor competent and willin& to serve, it ma* be &ranted to such
other person as the court ma* select.
8owever, the order of preference is not absolute for it depends on the attendant facts and
circumstances of each case.#$ %urisprudence has lon& held that the selection of an
administrator lies in the sound discretion of the trial court.'( In the main, the attendant
facts and circumstances of this case necessitate, at the least, a )oint administration b* both
respondent and Emilio III of their &randmothers, !ristinas, estate.
The order of preference does not rule out the appointment of co<administrators, speciall*
in cases where )ustice and equit* demand that opposin& parties or factions be represented
in the mana&ement of the estates, a situation which obtains here.
Similarl*, the sub)ect estate in this case calls to the succession other putative heirs,
includin& another ille&itimate &randchild of !ristina and 9ederico, 5enita Ta6edo, but
who was liCewise adopted b* 9ederico, and the two 1'3 siblin&s of respondent Isabel,
@ar&arita and Emilio II. In all, considerin& the conflictin& claims of the putative heirs,
and the unliquidated con)u&al partnership of !ristina and 9ederico which forms part of
their respective estates, we are impelled to move in onl* one direction, i.e., )oint
administration of the sub)ect estate.