Calma vs. Turla

A special administratrix may not be removed on the basis of DNA test results that merely disprove her maternal relationship to the decedent's wife, without disproving her paternity, especially when such results were not formally offered in evidence.

Mariano C. Turla died intestate on February 5, 2009, leaving real and personal properties. Respondent Marilu C. Turla claimed to be his sole legitimate heir with her late mother, Rufina de Castro, and sought letters of administration. Petitioner Maria T. Calma claimed to be Mariano's half-sister and opposed the petition, alleging Marilu was not Mariano's daughter. The dispute centers on who should be appointed as special administratrix of Mariano's estate pending the determination of filiation.

On February 5, 2009, Mariano C. Turla died intestate, leaving real properties in Quezon City and Caloocan City, bank deposits, and other personal properties valued at approximately P3,000,000.00. On March 12, 2009, respondent Marilu C. Turla filed a Petition for Letters of Administration before the RTC of Quezon City, alleging she was Mariano's sole legitimate heir, her mother Rufina de Castro having predeceased him. She presented her Certificate of Live Birth, which was signed and registered by Mariano himself. The RTC gave due course to the petition and, on April 21, 2009, issued Letters of Special Administration to respondent.

Petitioner Maria T. Calma, claiming to be Mariano's half-sister, opposed the petition. She alleged that respondent was not Mariano's daughter and that the information in respondent's birth certificates was false, asserting that Mariano and Rufina had no children. Petitioner nominated Norma Bernardino, who had been managing the decedent's business affairs, to be the administratrix. Respondent countered that her filiation was conclusively proven by her birth certificate authenticated by the NSO, and that only Mariano or his wife could impugn her legitimacy. She further argued that petitioner had no legal standing to oppose the appointment, and that Norma Bernardino had an interest antagonistic to the estate, as respondent had filed cases against Norma and her husband.

On June 29, 2009, petitioner filed a motion to order DNA testing, which the RTC granted on June 25, 2010, to determine respondent's paternity. The DNA test was conducted using blood samples from Rufina's alleged siblings and respondent. The report dated August 28, 2012 concluded that based on mitochondrial DNA analysis, there was no possibility that Rufina's alleged siblings were maternal relatives of respondent. On September 11, 2012, the RTC removed respondent as Special Administratrix, reasoning that the DNA results conclusively showed she was not Rufina's daughter, and appointed Norma Bernardino in her stead. Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied on May 9, 2013. Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which annulled the RTC orders for grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

• Filiation and Fraudulent Birth Certificate: Petitioner argued that respondent sought appointment based on a birth certificate showing she was the daughter of Rufina, but DNA results conclusively showed she was not Rufina's daughter, rendering the birth certificate fraudulent. She also cited Mariano's 1994 affidavit of adjudication stating Rufina left no descendants.
• Violation of Duties as Special Administratrix: Petitioner contended that respondent failed to submit an inventory and render an accounting of the estate, justifying her removal and the appointment of Norma Bernardino as the new Special Administratrix.

• Filiation and Legitimacy: Respondent maintained that her legitimacy was conclusively proven by her duly authenticated birth certificate, and only Mariano or his wife could impugn it. She argued petitioner lacked legal personality to oppose her appointment.
• Antagonistic Interest of Proposed Administrator: Respondent argued that Norma Bernardino was unqualified to act as administratrix because she had an interest antagonistic to the estate, as respondent had already filed several cases against Norma and her husband to recover estate properties.

• Removal of Special Administratrix: Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in removing respondent as Special Administratrix based on DNA test results showing she was not maternally related to the decedent's wife.
• Admissibility of DNA Evidence: Whether the DNA test results could be validly used as a basis for removal despite not being formally offered in evidence.
• Compliance with Administrative Duties: Whether respondent violated her duties as Special Administratrix by failing to submit an inventory and render an accounting.

• Removal of Special Administratrix: Yes. The RTC gravely abused its discretion in removing respondent because the DNA results disproving her maternal relation to Rufina did not disprove her paternity with Mariano, whose estate was under administration.
• Admissibility of DNA Evidence: No. The DNA test results were not formally offered in evidence pursuant to the Rules on Evidence and A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, depriving respondent the opportunity to contest them.
• Compliance with Administrative Duties: No. Respondent had submitted an initial accounting, and the directive to submit an inventory and final accounting was embodied in the very order removing her, which she assailed before the CA.

• Removal of Special Administratrix: The selection or removal of special administrators lies in the sound discretion of the court, but must be exercised based on reason, equity, justice, and legal principles. The RTC ordered DNA testing to determine respondent's paternity with Mariano. However, the test was conducted with Rufina's alleged siblings, proving only that respondent was not Rufina's daughter. This did not prove she was not Mariano's daughter, especially since Mariano reported and signed her birth certificate. Furthermore, Mariano's 1994 affidavit stating Rufina left no descendants did not prove respondent was not Mariano's daughter.
• Admissibility of DNA Evidence: Under Section 5 of A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC (Rule on DNA Evidence), the grant of a DNA testing application does not automatically admit the results into evidence. The results must be offered in accordance with the Rules on Evidence. Since the DNA results were not formally offered, they could not be validly used as a basis for revoking respondent's appointment.
• Compliance with Administrative Duties: Records showed respondent had submitted an initial accounting of funds. The RTC's directive to submit an inventory and accounting was contained in the September 11, 2012 Order that removed her, which she challenged via certiorari before the CA. Thus, she could not be faulted for non-compliance with an order that was under legal challenge and subsequently annulled.

• Selection and Removal of Special Administrators — The appointment and removal of a special administrator are interlocutory proceedings incidental to the main case and lie in the sound discretion of the court, not strictly governed by the rules on regular administrators. However, this discretion must be exercised without grave abuse, based on reason, equity, justice, and legal principles.
• Admissibility of DNA Evidence — A grant of a DNA testing application is not an automatic admission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence obtained. It is incumbent upon the parties who wish to avail of the results to offer them in accordance with the Rules on Evidence.

• "Clearly, the DNA test was ordered to prove respondent's paternity, but surprisingly, the test was conducted with the alleged siblings of Rufina, which showed that respondent is not related to Rufina. While respondent was shown to be not blood related to Rufina, however, the DNA result did not at all prove that she is not a daughter of Mariano, as petitioner claims and which the RTC's order of DNA testing wanted to establish." — This passage explains the core rationale for finding grave abuse of discretion: the DNA test was irrelevant to the issue of paternity with the decedent.
• "Section 5 of A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, Rule on DNA evidence, provides that the grant of DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic admission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence that may be obtained as a result thereof. Here, the DNA result was not offered in accordance with the Rules on Evidence." — This underscores the procedural infirmity in the RTC's reliance on the DNA results.

• Co vs. Judge Rosario, et al. — Cited for the doctrine that the selection or removal of special administrators is not governed by the rules regarding regular administrators and lies in the sound discretion of the court.
• Heirs of Belinda Dahlia A. Castillo vs. Lacuata-Gabriel — Cited to support the rule on the discretion of courts in appointing or removing special administrators.
• Roxas vs. Pecson — Cited as the origin of the rule on the sound discretion of the court in the selection of a special administrator.
• Rivera vs. Hon. Santos — Cited for the proposition that the need to first pass upon the issues of fitness or unfitness as in the case of a regular administrator does not obtain in the selection of a special administrator.
• Alcasid vs. Samson — Cited for the rule that the appointment and removal of a special administrator are interlocutory proceedings incidental to the main case.
• Fule vs. Court of Appeals — Cited for the principle that the exercise of discretion in appointing or removing a special administrator must be based on reason, equity, justice, and legal principles.

• Section 5, A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC (Rule on DNA Evidence) — Provides that the grant of a DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic admission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence obtained. Applied to bar the RTC from using the DNA results as a basis for removal since they were not formally offered in evidence.
• Sections 7 and 8, A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC (Rule on DNA Evidence) — Pertains to the assessment of DNA evidence upon presentation by the RTC, which was not properly observed because the results were not offered as evidence.

Carpio (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concurred.