Leriou v. Longa

A certification against forum shopping signed by counsel without a special power of attorney from the petitioners is defective and constitutes a valid cause for dismissal of the petition, and in intestate proceedings, publication of the notice in a newspaper of general circulation is the jurisdictional requirement that vests the court with jurisdiction over all interested persons, while personal notice to known heirs is merely a matter of procedural convenience and not a jurisdictional requisite.

Enrique T. Longa died intestate, survived by his legitimate children Eleptherios and Stephen (both residing in the United States), his former spouse Iona (a Greek national who had divorced Enrique and remarried), and his illegitimate minor children Yohanna and Victoria, represented by their mother Mary Jane B. Sta. Cruz. Enrique left several real and personal properties with no creditors. The dispute centers on who should administer his estate: the legitimate children, who claim a preferential right under Rule 78, Section 6, or the mother of the illegitimate minor children, who was appointed administratrix by the RTC. The petitioners are non-residents of the Philippines, a disqualification under Rule 78, Section 1(b) for serving as executor or administrator.

Enrique T. Longa died intestate, survived by his legitimate children Eleptherios and Stephen, his former spouse Iona (a Greek national who had divorced him and remarried), and his illegitimate minor children Yohanna and Victoria. The legitimate children and Iona reside in the United States. Enrique left several properties, including parcels of land in Ayala Alabang Village, Rizal Village, and Moonwalk Village, a condominium unit in Baguio, shares of stock in various companies, country club shares, a gold Rolex watch, and a box of precious coins. There were no creditors of the estate.

On June 19, 2007, the minor respondents Yohanna and Victoria, represented by their mother Mary Jane B. Sta. Cruz, filed a Petition for Letters of Administration with the RTC of Muntinlupa City, docketed as SP Proc. No. 07-035. Respondents were deemed pauper litigants and exempt from paying the filing fee, subject to payment upon a final judgment in their favor. On November 5, 2007, Acting Presiding Judge Romulo SG. Villanueva appointed Sta. Cruz as administratrix, requiring a bond of ₱480,000.00. Letters of Administration were issued on December 19, 2007, and on March 18, 2008, Sta. Cruz submitted a Report of the Inventory and Appraisal of the estate's real and personal properties, which the RTC duly noted.

On May 20, 2008, petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion to remove Sta. Cruz as administratrix and to appoint Eleptherios or his nominee as administrator. Petitioners alleged denial of due process for not receiving notice of the petition, accused Sta. Cruz of neglect for failing to coordinate with the DFA for proper service, and charged her with misrepresentation for non-disclosure of all assets and for claiming pauper litigant status. Petitioners also asserted that Sta. Cruz did not post a guardianship bond as required by A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC, and that as surviving spouse and legitimate children, they had a preferential right to administer the estate under Rule 78, Section 6.

Sta. Cruz opposed the motion, asserting that she had mailed the petition and the RTC order to petitioners at the addresses they provided, coordinated with the DFA as evidenced by a "RECEIVED" stamp, and was in constant communication with petitioners, particularly Eleptherios, through e-mails. She denied any misrepresentation, explaining that she excluded properties not registered in Enrique's name and only learned of a Carmona, Cavite property after filing the petition. She maintained her pauper status, noting she had to borrow money to pay the surety bond premium. She argued that the Rule on Guardianship of Minors did not apply since she was representing her children in the estate proceedings, not acting as guardian of their property. She countered that petitioners were disqualified: Iona was divorced and remarried, and Eleptherios and Stephen were non-residents. She further alleged that Eleptherios was depleting the estate by charging personal expenses against it and had ordered her to transfer the entire estate to him for personal partition.

The RTC denied the Omnibus Motion on July 18, 2008, finding no sufficient ground for removal under Rule 82, Section 2. It held that Sta. Cruz had substantially complied with court orders, was in constant communication with petitioners, and that non-disclosure of all assets did not affect her appointment. The RTC also ruled that the guardianship bond requirement was inapplicable, that petitioners' preferential right was not absolute, and that Eleptherios was disqualified as a non-resident under Rule 78, Section 1(b). Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied on November 3, 2008. The Court of Appeals affirmed both orders on June 28, 2012, and denied reconsideration on October 8, 2012.

• Due Process / Jurisdictional Notice: Petitioners alleged that they were denied due process because they did not receive any notice about the Petition for Letters of Administration, and that the mandatory and jurisdictional requirements of Section 3, Rule 79, in relation to Sections 3 and 4, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court, and the RTC's own Order dated July 4, 2007, were not complied with, as mere proof of service on the DFA did not constitute valid service.
• E-mails as Insufficient Proof of Notice: Petitioners contended that the exchange of e-mails between Sta. Cruz and Eleptherios did not constitute official service of the petition upon all petitioners, since the e-mails were only between Sta. Cruz and one petitioner.
• Preferential Right to Administer: Petitioners asserted that as legitimate children of the decedent, they had a preferential and superior right over the illegitimate children to act as administrator of the estate, or to designate somebody else to administer it, pursuant to the order of preference under Rule 78, Section 6.
• Unfitness of Administratrix: Petitioners charged Sta. Cruz with neglect for failing to coordinate with the DFA, misrepresentation for non-disclosure of all assets and for falsely claiming pauper litigant status, and failure to post a guardianship bond under A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC, all of which rendered her unfit to discharge her duties as administratrix.

• Compliance with Notice Requirements: Respondent-administratrix countered that she mailed the petition and RTC order to petitioners at the addresses they provided, coordinated with the DFA as evidenced by the "RECEIVED" stamp, and was in constant communication with petitioners, particularly Eleptherios, through e-mails, which Eleptherios never denied.
• No Misrepresentation: Respondent-administratrix explained that she excluded properties not registered in Enrique's name, only learned of the Carmona property after filing, and that her pauper status was properly determined after a hearing. She noted that residing in Ayala Alabang Village does not disqualify her as a pauper litigant absent proof of ownership.
• Guardianship Bond Inapplicable: Respondent-administratrix argued that A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC does not apply because she is representing her children in the administration and preservation of their father's estate, not acting as guardian of the children's property.
• Disqualification of Petitioners: Respondent-administratrix averred that petitioners are disqualified to act as administrators because Iona is divorced from Enrique and has remarried, and Eleptherios and Stephen are non-residents of the Philippines.
• Danger of Estate Depletion: Respondent-administratrix alleged that Eleptherios was depleting the estate by charging personal expenses against it and had ordered her to transfer the entire estate to him for personal partition, necessitating court-supervised settlement.

• Certification Against Forum Shopping: Whether the petition should be dismissed for a defective certification against forum shopping signed by counsel without a special power of attorney from the petitioners.
• Jurisdictional Notice: Whether personal notice to known heirs under Section 4, Rule 76 of the Rules of Court is a jurisdictional requirement in intestate proceedings, such that the absence thereof renders all proceedings null and void.
• Preferential Right to Administer: Whether petitioners, as legitimate children of the decedent, have a preferential and superior right to be appointed administrator of the estate over the court-appointed administratrix who is the mother and representative of the decedent's illegitimate minor children.
• Removal of Administratrix: Whether the grounds raised by petitioners are sufficient to warrant the removal of respondent-administratrix under Section 2, Rule 82 of the Rules of Court.

• Certification Against Forum Shopping: Yes. The petition is dismissible because counsel signed the certification against forum shopping without an SPA from the petitioners, which is a valid cause for dismissal pursuant to Anderson vs. Ho.
• Jurisdictional Notice: No. Personal notice to known heirs is not a jurisdictional requirement; it is a matter of procedural convenience. Publication of the notice in a newspaper of general circulation is the jurisdictional requirement in an in rem proceeding, vesting the court with jurisdiction over all interested persons.
• Preferential Right to Administer: No. The order of preference under Rule 78, Section 6 is not absolute and depends on attendant facts and circumstances. Petitioners are non-residents and are disqualified under Rule 78, Section 1(b) from serving as administrators.
• Removal of Administratrix: No. No sufficient ground for removal under Section 2, Rule 82 was established. The administratrix substantially complied with court orders, did not commit misrepresentation, and the guardianship bond requirement is inapplicable.

• Certification Against Forum Shopping: The certification against forum shopping must be signed by the party-pleader, not by counsel, because it is a personal representation assuring the court that no other action involving the same parties and causes of action is pending. If the party-pleader is unable to sign, he or she must execute a special power of attorney authorizing counsel to sign. Here, Atty. Baquiran signed the certification without any SPA from the petitioners, and his own statement revealed that the law firm had lost communication with the petitioners. A certification signed by counsel without proper authorization is defective and constitutes a valid cause for dismissal. A defective certification is generally not curable by subsequent correction absent compelling reasons or special circumstances, none of which were present.

• Jurisdictional Notice: The settlement of an estate, whether testate or intestate, is a proceeding in rem. Under Section 3, Rule 76, the court must cause notice to be published three weeks successively in a newspaper of general circulation. This publication is notice to the whole world and vests the court with jurisdiction over all persons interested in the estate. Personal notice to known heirs under Section 4, Rule 76 is merely a matter of procedural convenience, not a jurisdictional requisite. In this case, the Order dated July 4, 2007 was published for three consecutive weeks in Balita, a newspaper of general circulation, on July 27, August 3, and August 10, 2007. By such publication, petitioners were deemed notified of the intestate proceedings. The Court relied on Alaban vs. Court of Appeals and Pilapil vs. Heirs of Maximino R. Briones, where heirs who did not receive personal notice were nonetheless deemed notified through publication.

• Preferential Right to Administer: While the order of preference under Section 6, Rule 78 gives surviving spouses, next of kin, and creditors preferential right to administration, this preference is not absolute. The paramount consideration is the extent of one's interest in the estate, as articulated in Gabriel vs. Court of Appeals. The determination of suitability rests largely in the sound judgment of the probate court. Here, petitioners are non-residents of the Philippines, disqualifying them from serving as administrators under Rule 78, Section 1(b). Respondents, being minors, are likewise disqualified. With both parties disqualified and no known creditors, the court must appoint a suitable third party. Petitioners nominated Juan Manuel Elizalde but failed to justify why letters should issue in his favor. The administratrix, by contrast, has a direct interest in protecting the estate for the benefit of her minor children with Enrique, and there is no indication she would jeopardize their interest or that of petitioners.

• Removal of Administratrix: Under Section 2, Rule 82, an administrator may be removed for neglect to render accounts, failure to perform court orders, absconding, insanity, or other incapacity or unsuitability. The RTC found that Sta. Cruz substantially complied with court orders, coordinated with the DFA, and was in constant communication with petitioners. The non-disclosure of certain assets did not affect her appointment because Section 2, Rule 76 requires only an allegation of probable value and character of estate property, and she later submitted the true inventory. The pauper litigant status was properly determined after a hearing, and residence in Ayala Alabang Village does not disqualify her absent proof of ownership. The guardianship bond under A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC does not apply because this is an estate settlement proceeding, not a guardianship proceeding over the minors' property. The findings of fact of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are generally binding and conclusive, and none of the recognized exceptions apply.

• Certification Against Forum Shopping Must Be Signed by the Party-Pleader — The certification against forum shopping is a peculiar personal representation by the principal party, not counsel, assuring the court that no other action involving the same parties and causes of action is pending. If the party-pleader cannot sign for reasonable or justifiable reasons, he or she must execute a special power of attorney authorizing counsel to sign. A certification signed by counsel without an SPA is defective and constitutes a valid cause for dismissal. A defective certification is generally not curable by subsequent submission or correction, unless there are compelling reasons or special circumstances justifying a liberal approach.

• In Rem Nature of Estate Settlement Proceedings — The settlement of an estate, whether testate or intestate, is a proceeding in rem. Publication of the notice in a newspaper of general circulation for three consecutive weeks is the jurisdictional requirement that vests the court with jurisdiction over all persons interested in the estate. Publication is notice to the whole world. Personal notice to known heirs is a matter of procedural convenience, not a jurisdictional requisite, and any infirmity in personal notice is cured by publication.

• Order of Preference in Appointment of Administrators Is Not Absolute — While Rule 78, Section 6 establishes an order of preference (surviving spouse, next of kin, creditors), this preference is not absolute and depends on the attendant facts and circumstances. The paramount consideration is the extent of one's interest in the estate. A person enjoying preferential rights may be bypassed if unsuitable, and the court's determination of suitability will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear error. Non-residents are disqualified from serving as administrators under Rule 78, Section 1(b).

• Removal of Administrator Lies Within Court Discretion — Under Section 2, Rule 82, removal of an administrator lies within the discretion of the appointing court. There must be evidence of an act or omission not conformable to the rules or court orders sufficient to warrant removal. Removal does not lie on the whims, caprices, or dictates of the heirs or beneficiaries.

• "Personal notice upon the heirs is a matter of procedural convenience and not a jurisdictional requisite." — This passage articulates the controlling rule that distinguishes the jurisdictional requirement of publication from the procedural convenience of personal notice in estate settlement proceedings, resolving the core jurisdictional issue raised by petitioners.

• "A certification which had been signed by counsel without the proper authorization is defective and constitutes a valid cause for the dismissal of the petition." — This formulation, drawn from Anderson vs. Ho, states the canonical rule on defective certifications against forum shopping and was applied to dismiss the petition on procedural grounds.

• "In the appointment of the administrator of the estate of a deceased person, the principal consideration reckoned with is the interest in said estate of the one to be appointed as administrator." — This passage from Gabriel vs. Court of Appeals defines the controlling standard for appointing administrators, emphasizing interest in the estate over rigid application of the statutory order of preference.

• "The publication requirement of the notice in newspapers is precisely for the purpose of informing all interested parties in the estate of the deceased of the existence of the settlement proceedings, most especially those who were not named as heirs or creditors in the petition, regardless of whether such omission was voluntarily or involuntarily made." — This passage from Pilapil vs. Heirs of Maximino R. Briones explains the rationale behind the publication requirement in in rem estate proceedings and confirms that publication cures any defect in personal notice.

• Jacinto vs. Gumaru, Jr., 734 Phil. 685 (2014) — Followed. Elucidated the rules on verification and certification against forum shopping, distinguishing between defects in verification (curable) and defects in certification against forum shopping (generally not curable), and confirming that counsel may sign only with an SPA from the party-pleader.
• Altres vs. Empleo — Followed. Provided the restated guidelines on non-compliance with verification and certification against forum shopping requirements, including the rule that the certification must be signed by all petitioners or, under justifiable circumstances, by one with common interest, and that counsel may sign only with an SPA.
• Anderson vs. Ho, 701 Phil. 6 (2013) — Applied as controlling precedent. Held that a certification against forum shopping signed by counsel without an SPA is defective and constitutes a valid cause for dismissal, and that a defective certification is generally not curable by subsequent correction.
• Alaban vs. Court of Appeals, 507 Phil. 682 (2005) — Followed. Held that personal notice to heirs in probate proceedings is a matter of procedural convenience, not a jurisdictional requisite, and that publication cures any infirmity in personal notice.
• Pilapil vs. Heirs of Maximino R. Briones, 543 Phil. 184 (2007) — Applied. Held that in intestate proceedings, which are in rem, publication of notice in a newspaper of general circulation is notice to the whole world and suffices to inform all interested parties, including those not named in the petition.
• Gabriel vs. Court of Appeals, 287 Phil. 459 (1992) — Applied. Established that the principal consideration in appointing an administrator is the extent of one's interest in the estate, which underlies the order of preference in Rule 78, Section 6.
• Uy vs. Court of Appeals, 519 Phil. 673 (2006) — Followed. Held that the order of preference in appointing an administrator depends on attendant facts and circumstances, and that a probate court may set aside the order of preference if the preferred person is unsuitable.
• Degala vs. Ceniza and Umipig, 78 Phil. 791 — Followed. Held that removal of an administrator lies within the discretion of the appointing court, which determines the sufficiency of any ground for removal.

• Rule 45, Section 4, Rules of Court — Requires that a petition for review on certiorari contain a sworn certification against forum shopping. Applied to dismiss the petition because counsel signed the certification without an SPA from the petitioners.
• Rule 76, Sections 3 and 4, Rules of Court — Section 3 requires publication of notice of the time and place for proving the will (or hearing the petition) in a newspaper of general circulation for three consecutive weeks. Section 4 requires personal notice to known heirs, legatees, and devisees by mail or personally. Applied to hold that publication is the jurisdictional requirement, while personal notice is merely procedural convenience.
• Rule 78, Section 1, Rules of Court — Disqualifies minors and non-residents of the Philippines from serving as executors or administrators. Applied to disqualify petitioners Eleptherios and Stephen (non-residents) and respondents (minors) from serving as administrators.
• Rule 78, Section 6, Rules of Court — Establishishes the order of preference for appointment of administrators: surviving spouse, next of kin, and creditors. Applied but held not absolute, depending on attendant facts and circumstances.
• Rule 82, Section 2, Rules of Court — Provides grounds for removal of an administrator: neglect to render accounts or settle the estate, failure to perform court orders, absconding, insanity, or other incapacity or unsuitability. Applied to find no sufficient ground for removal of the administratrix.
• A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC (Rule on Guardianship of Minors), Section 16 — Requires parents acting as guardians of a minor's property to post a bond if the property's market value or annual income exceeds ₱50,000.00. Held inapplicable because the proceeding is for settlement of estate, not guardianship over the minors' property, since the minors' rights over the estate are merely inchoate until partition.

Del Castillo, Jardeleza, and Tijam, JJ., concurred. Bersamin, J., was on official business.