Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

Republic of the Philippines v.

Marcos II and Imelda Marcos


G.R. Nos. 130371 & 130855; Aug. 4, 2009; Peralta, J;
Digest by Paola

Facts:

(No express statement of facts at the start but it appears that: The Republic of the PH
filed a petition for the probate of the will of Ferdinand E. Marcos, with prayer to
appoint the Commissioner of the BIR (Liwayway Vinzons-Chato) as special
administrator, with RTC Pasig. Imelda and Ferdinand Marcos II opposed the
petition.

It was also not expressly stated but it appears from the ratio of the Court that Imelda
and Marcos II were named by the testator as executors in his will.)

1. The RTC (acting as probate court) issued an order granting letters of


testamentary in solidum to Marcos II and Imelda as executors of the last will
and testament.
a. The court ordered both named executors to file a bond of P50,000 and
that pending such filing of bond and oath, Commissioner Vinzons-Chato is
authorized to continue as Special Administrator of the estate.
2. Both the Republic and Imelda filed an MR.
a. Republic: MR on the ground that Imelda and Marcos II are not competent
to be executors.
b. Imelda: MR on the ground that the will is lost and Rep. has not proven its
existence and validity.
3. The RTC denied both MRs.
4. The Republic then filed with the SC a Pet. For review on Certiorari (R45)
questioning said orders.
a. SC referred the case to CA for consideration on the merits or any other
action as it may deem appropriate.
b. CA – dismissed said petition on ground of wrong mode of appeal.
5. Republic is now questioning the order of CA and raised the issue of
incompetency of both the named executors.

Issue: WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition of the Republic – NO.
(Wrong mode of appeal and no merit on issue raised)

Ratio:

As to mode of appeal:

1. When the RTC issued its order granting letters testamentary, the Republic
questioned them by filing Pet. For review on Certiorari (R45) to the SC
a. SC Circular No. 2-90 was then in effect which enumerated what
judgments of the RTC may be appealed to the SC on R45 (Basically the
cases enumerated in Sec. 5 Art VIII of the Constitution. Just refer to p 52-
53 of your SCRA copy for the list.)
b. Propriety of granting letters testamentary do not fall within any of
the grounds which can be the subject of direct appeal to SC.
c. CA is therefore correct in dismissing the petition since Circular No. 2-90
states that appeals taken by the wrong or inappropriate mode shall be
dismissed.
d. The direct appeal to the SC also violated the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts.
2. Likewise, the determination of WON the named executors should be
disqualified is a question of fact – the proper remedy therefore was appeal to
the CA and not SC.
3. There is no merit in the Republic’s contention that the SC’s referral of the
petition to CA is a consideration on part of the Court that the petition is
deserving to be given due course not withstanding the wrong remedy resorted
to.
a. SC’s order to CA stated that the case is referred for consideration on
merits OR any other action as it may deem appropriate.
 CA therefore had discretion to dismiss the case for having
resorted to the wrong remedy.
b. When its MR was denied, it should have filed an appeal within the period
prescribed.
c. ALSO when there is no urgency or need for parties to resort to the
extraordinary remedy of certiorari then it would not be taken cognizance
of. Here, the Republic offered no such important or special reason.
4. The adequate and proper remedy available to the Republic was for it to file an
appeal under Rule 109 of the ROC, which provides as ground for such an
appeal the allowance or disallowance of a will.

As to the competency of the named executors:

1. When a will has been admitted to probate, it is the duty of the Court to
issue letters testamentary to the person named as executor upon his
application. Courts will not name a better executor for the testator nor
disqualify, by judicial veto, the widow or friend or other person selected in
the will, EXCEPT upon strict proof of the statutory grounds of
incompetency.
a. The choice of his executor is a precious prerogative of the testator, a
necessary concomitant of his right to dispose of his property in the
manner he wishes. It is natural that the testator should desire to appoint
one of his confidence, one he can trust to carry out his wishes. The
curtailment of this right may be considered as curtailment of the right to
dispose. (Ozeata v. Pecson)
b. Courts have always respected the right to which a testator enjoys the right
to determine who is most suitable to settle his testamentary affairs and
his solemn selection shall not be lightly disregarded. (In re Erlanger’s
Estate)
2. Rule 78.1 (c) defines who are incompetent to serve as executors particularly
those who is in the opinion of the court unfit xxx by want of understanding
or integrity or by reason of conviction of an offense involving moral
turpitude.
a. The Republic hinges its opposition on the grounds 1) want of integrity
and 2) conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude.
b. It contends that Imelda was convicted in 2 cases for violation of RA 3019
while Marcos II was convicted in 8 cases for violation of Sec 45 (failure to
file income tax return) and Sec. 50 (non-payment of deficiency taxes) of
the NIRC.
3. The RTC on the other hand made the finding that these assertions by the
Republic are not substantiated. The SC is disinclined to interfere with any
action taken by probate court in the matter of removal of an executor
UNLESS positive error or gross abuse of discretion is shown.
a. The ROC gives the probate court discretion to determine WON an
individual is unfit to serve as administrator since it is the court which
will be affected by any act or omission on part of the executor not
conformable to or in disregard of the orders of the probate court.
4. The SC likewise evaluated these assertions of the Republic and found them to be
of no merit:
a. As to Imelda: the Republic conveniently omitted to state that the 2 cases
filed against her have been reversed by the SC.
b. As to Marcos II: He was acquitted by the CA on all four charges for
violation of Sec. 50. As to the other four, they are still pending appeal.
c. Assuming the same would be upheld: failure to file an income tax
return is not a crime involving moral turpitude.
5. “Crime involving moral turpitude” – Court have consistently adopted the
definition in Black's Law Dictionary as "an act of baseness, vileness, or
depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to
society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and
duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty, or good morals."
a. Moreover, not all crimes involve moral turpitude – only those where fraud
is an element is considered as involving moral turpitude.
b. Failure to file does not involve fraud since mere omission to do so already
constitutes violation regardless of won there is fraudulent intent.

As to contention of estoppel: Republic claims that since the named executors


denied existence of will – they are estopped from claiming to be rightful executors.

1. The named executors opposed said petition on the grounds that a) Petitioner
does not have the requisite interest to institute it; b) The original copy of the
will was not attached to the petition; c) Commissioner of the BIR is not
qualified to be appointed as administrator of the estate.
2. In doing so, they are not estopped since they only acted within their rights
when they put in issue legal grounds for opposing probate proceedings.

Вам также может понравиться