17. G.R. No.

L-61700 September 14, 1987

PRINCESITA SANTERO, FEDERICO SANTERO and WILLIE SANTERO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF
FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, ANSELMA DIAZ, VICTOR, RODRIGO, ANSELMINA, MIGUEL, all
surnamed SANTERO, and REYNALDO EVARISTO, in his capacity as Administrator of the Intestate
Estate of PABLO SANTERO, respondents.

PARAS, J.: Second Division

Nature of the case: Petition for certiorari which questions the order of the respondent court
granting the Motion for Allowance filed by private respondents

Facts: Princesita Santos-Morales, Frederico Santero and Willie Santero (Petitioners) are children of
the late Pablo Santero with Felixberta Pacursa while Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina and Miguel
Santero (Respondents) are 4 of the 7 children by Pablo Santero with Anselma Diaz. Both sets of
children are the natural children of the late Pablo since neither of their mothers was married to
their father. Pablo was the only legitimate son of Pascual Santero and Simona Pamuti Vda. de
Santero.

The issue in this case springs from the Motion for Allowance filed by Respondents through their
guardian, Anselma in 1981 wherein the ground cited was for support which included educational
expenses, clothing and medical necessities, which was granted. Again, Respondents filed a Motion
for Allowance in 1982, citing the same grounds.

Petitioners opposed and contended that the wards for whom allowance is sought are no longer
schooling and have attained majority age so that they are no longer under guardianship. They
likewise allege that the administrator does not have sufficient funds to cover the said allowance
because whatever funds are in the hands of the administrator, they constitute funds held in trust
for the benefit of whoever will be adjudged as owners of the Kawit property from which said
administrator derives the only income of the intestate estate of Pablo.

In the Reply to the Opposition filed by Anselma, she admitted that some of her children are of age
and not enrolled for the first semester due to lack of funds but will be enrolled as soon as they are
given the requested allowances. She cited Art. 290 of the Civil Code and Sec. 3 of Rule 83 of the
Rules of Court.

CFI granted the allowance to the Respondents (2k each). And while the case was pending in the
SC, Respondents filed another Motion for Allowance to include Juanita, Estelita and Pedro Santero
as children of Pablo with Anselma praying that an order be granted directing the administrator to
deliver 6k to each of the 7 children as their allowance. CFI granted again but Petitioners asked the
CFI to reconsider. An Amended Order was issued directing Anselma to submit her clarification or
explanation as to the additional 3 children included. Anselma stated that in her previous motions,
only the last 4 minor children were included and her first 3 who were then of age should have
been included since all her children have the right to receive allowance as advance payment of
their shares in the inheritance of Pablo under Art. 188 of the NCC.

CFI issued another Order directing the administrator to get back the allowance of the 3 additional
recipients or children of Anselma.
Petitioners argue that Respondents are not entitled to any allowance since they have already
attained majority, 2 are gainfully employed and 1 is married as provided for under Sec. 3 Rule 83,
of the ROC. Petitioners also allege that there was misrepresentation on the part of the guardian in
asking for allowance for tuition fees, book and other school materials and other miscellaneous
expenses for school term 1982-83 because these wards have already attained majority age so that
they are no longer under guardianship

Issue: Are the private respondents still entitled to allowance even if they have already attained the
age of majority, are employed and/ or married?

Ruling: Yes. The controlling provision of law is not Rule 83, Sec. 3 of the New Rules of Court but
Arts. 290 and 188 of the Civil Code reading as follows:

Art. 290. Support is everything that is indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing and medical
attendance, according to the social position of the family.

Support also includes the education of the person entitled to be supported until he completes his
education or training for some profession, trade or vocation, even beyond the age of majority.

Art. 188. From the common mass of property support shall be given to the surviving spouse and to
the children during the liquidation of the inventoried property and until what belongs to them is
delivered; but from this shall be deducted that amount received for support which exceeds the
fruits or rents pertaining to them.

The fact that private respondents are of age, gainfully employed, or married is of no moment and
should not be regarded as the determining factor of their right to allowance under Art. 188. While
the Rules of Court limit allowances to the widow and minor or incapacitated children of the
deceased, the New Civil Code gives the surviving spouse and his/her children without distinction.
Hence, the private respondents Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina and Miguel all surnamed Santero are
entitled to allowances as advances from their shares in the inheritance from their father Pablo
Santero. Since the provision of the Civil Code, a substantive law, gives the surviving spouse and to
the children the right to receive support during the liquidation of the estate of the deceased, such
right cannot be impaired by Rule 83 Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court which is a procedural rule. Be it
noted however that with respect to "spouse," the same must be the "legitimate spouse" (not
common-law spouses who are the mothers of the children here).