Santero vs. Court of First Instance of Cavite

Articles 188 and 290 of the Civil Code, as substantive law, prevail over Section 3 of Rule 83 of the Rules of Court in determining entitlement to allowances from a deceased person's estate during liquidation, such that all children — regardless of age, employment, or marital status — are entitled to receive allowances as advances on their hereditary shares.

Pablo Santero, who died on November 30, 1973, was the only legitimate son of Pascual Santero (died 1970) and Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero (died 1976). Pablo begot two sets of natural children: petitioners Princesita Santero-Morales, Federico Santero, and Willie Santero with Felixberta Pacursa; and private respondents Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina, and Miguel, all surnamed Santero, with Anselma Diaz. Neither mother was married to Pablo. The intestate estate of Pablo Santero generates income from properties in Kawit, Cavite, administered by Reynaldo C. Evaristo. Under Article 992 of the Civil Code, illegitimate children are barred from inheriting ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of their father or mother — a barrier previously upheld by the Court in the related case of Anselma Diaz, et al. vs. Felisa Pamuti-Jardin (G.R. No. 66574-R), which excluded both sets of Pablo's children from the estate of Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.

Pablo Santero died on November 30, 1973, leaving two sets of natural children. With Felixberta Pacursa, he begot Princesita Santero-Morales, Federico Santero, and Willie Santero — the petitioners herein. With Anselma Diaz, he begot seven children, four of whom — Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina, and Miguel, all surnamed Santero — are the private respondents in this petition. Neither Felixberta nor Anselma was married to Pablo. Pablo was himself the only legitimate son of Pascual Santero and Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.

On June 30, 1982, Anselma Diaz, acting as guardian of her four youngest children, filed a Motion for Allowance with the Court of First Instance of Cavite seeking ₱2,000.00 each for tuition fees, clothing materials, and subsistence, citing Article 290 of the Civil Code and Section 3 of Rule 83 of the Rules of Court. The motion contained a notice of hearing addressed to opposing counsel, setting the hearing for July 8, 1982. Petitioners' counsel, Atty. Beltran, received the motion and filed an opposition on the same date, contending that the wards were no longer minors, were no longer schooling, and had attained majority age, thus removing them from guardianship. Petitioners further argued that the administrator lacked sufficient funds because the estate's income was held in trust for whoever would be adjudged owner of the Kawit properties. Anselma Diaz replied that some of her children were of age and not enrolled for the first semester due to lack of funds but would enroll once allowances were granted.

On July 28, 1982, Executive Judge Ildefonso M. Bleza granted the motion, awarding ₱2,000.00 each to Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina, and Miguel, reasoning that the court could not deviate from its duty to provide for their further education and that the estate was large enough to cover the insignificant amount. The court noted that it had granted similar motions in previous years (1979–1981), with wards receiving ₱1,500.00 each depending on the availability of funds.

While the instant petition was pending, Anselma Diaz filed another Motion for Allowance dated March 25, 1985, seeking to include her three older children — Juanita, Estelita, and Pedrito Santero — and praying that ₱6,000.00 each be awarded to all seven of her children. The respondent court granted this motion, but petitioners sought reconsideration. On September 10, 1985, the court issued an Amended Order directing Anselma Diaz to clarify the inclusion of the three additional children. She explained that her first three children, though of age, should have been included because all her children had the right to receive allowances as advance payment of their shares in Pablo Santero's inheritance under Article 188 of the Civil Code. Petitioners filed a Motion to Admit Supplemental Petition opposing the inclusion of the three additional heirs, but their motion for extension of time was denied by the Supreme Court on October 23, 1985. On November 11, 1985, the respondent court issued an order directing the administrator to recover the allowances disbursed to the three additional children.

• Majority Age and Employment: Petitioners argued that private respondents are not entitled to any allowance because they have already attained majority age, two are gainfully employed, and one is married, as provided under Section 3, Rule 83 of the Rules of Court.
• Misrepresentation on Schooling: Petitioners alleged that there was misrepresentation by the guardian in seeking allowance for tuition fees, books, and other school materials for the 1982–83 school term, because the wards had already attained majority age and were no longer under guardianship.
• Insufficiency of Funds: Petitioners contended that the administrator of the estate of Pablo Santero does not have sufficient funds to cover the allowance, because whatever funds are in the administrator's hands constitute trust funds for the benefit of whoever will be adjudged as owners of the Kawit properties from which the estate's income is derived.
• Lack of Hearing: Petitioners asserted that the respondent court granted the motion for allowance without conducting a hearing to determine the truth of the private respondents' allegations.

• Entitlement Under Civil Code: Respondent Anselma Diaz cited Article 290 of the Civil Code, providing that support includes the education of the person entitled to be supported until he completes his education or training for some trade or vocation, even beyond the age of majority, and Section 3 of Rule 83 of the Rules of Court.
• Right to Advance Payment: In her clarification regarding the inclusion of her three older children, Anselma Diaz argued that all her children have the right to receive allowances as advance payment of their shares in the inheritance of Pablo Santero under Article 188 of the Civil Code.
• Precedent of Prior Grants: Respondent noted that the court had granted similar motions in previous years for school expenses, and that the wards had been receiving allowances for about eight years.

• Applicability of Civil Code vs. Rules of Court: Whether the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the allowance to private respondents despite the fact that all of them are not minors and all are gainfully employed with the exception of Miguel.
• Factual Basis of Allowance: Whether the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the allowance based on allegations that the wards are still schooling and in actual need of money to defray school expenses for 1982–83, when the truth is that they are no longer schooling.
• Due Process — Hearing: Whether the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion for allowance without conducting a hearing to determine the truth of the private respondents' allegations.

• Applicability of Civil Code vs. Rules of Court: No grave abuse of discretion. The controlling provision is Articles 188 and 290 of the Civil Code, not Section 3 of Rule 83 of the Rules of Court; the Civil Code, being substantive law, extends the right to allowances to all children without distinction as to age or capacity, and a substantive right cannot be impaired by a procedural rule.
• Factual Basis of Allowance: No grave abuse of discretion. The fact that the private respondents are of age, gainfully employed, or married is of no moment under Article 188, which entitles them to allowances as advances from their shares in the inheritance from their father Pablo Santero.
• Due Process — Hearing: No grave abuse of discretion. The record shows that the motion contained a notice of hearing setting it for July 8, 1982, and petitioners' counsel filed an opposition on the same date, indicating that a hearing was conducted.

• Applicability of Civil Code vs. Rules of Court: The Court identified the controlling law as Articles 188 and 290 of the Civil Code, not Section 3 of Rule 83 of the Rules of Court. Article 290 defines support as everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, and medical attendance, and expressly includes the education of the person entitled to be supported until he completes his education or training, even beyond the age of majority. Article 188 provides that 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, with excess amounts to be deducted from their shares. While the Rules of Court limit allowances to the widow and minor or incapacitated children, the Civil Code gives the surviving spouse and children the right without distinction. Because the Civil Code is a substantive law and the Rules of Court is a procedural rule, the substantive right cannot be impaired by the procedural limitation. The Court 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. The question of entitlement concerns only the intestate estate of Pablo Santero and not the estates of his parents, because Article 992 of the Civil Code bars illegitimate children from inheriting ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of their father or mother, as previously settled in Anselma Diaz, et al. vs. Felisa Pamuti-Jardin (G.R. No. 66574-R).
• Factual Basis of Allowance: The fact that the 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 Article 188. The Civil Code gives the surviving spouse and children the right to receive support during liquidation of the estate without distinction as to age, employment, or marital status. The private respondents are entitled to allowances as advances from their shares in the inheritance from their father Pablo Santero.
• Due Process — Hearing: The Court found that it was not true that the motion was granted without hearing. The motion dated June 30, 1982 contained a notice of hearing addressed to the lawyers for the petitioners, setting the hearing for July 8, 1982 at 9:00 in the morning. Petitioners' counsel, Atty. Beltran, apparently received a copy of the motion because he filed an opposition on the same date of the hearing. Furthermore, the petition itself admitted that the wards had been granted allowances for school expenses for about eight years, and the respondent court merely followed its precedent of granting similar motions in prior years (1979–1981), when wards received ₱1,500.00 each depending on the availability of funds.

• Substantive Law Prevails Over Procedural Rules — A substantive right granted by the Civil Code cannot be impaired or restricted by a procedural rule such as the Rules of Court. Here, the right of children to receive allowances from the estate during liquidation, granted by Articles 188 and 290 of the Civil Code, is substantive and cannot be limited by Section 3 of Rule 83 of the Rules of Court, which restricts allowances to widows and minor or incapacitated children.
• Allowances as Advances on Inheritance (Article 188, Civil Code) — 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; amounts received for support exceeding the fruits or rents pertaining to them shall be deducted from their shares. This right extends to all children without distinction as to age, employment, or marital status.
• Support Includes Education Beyond Majority (Article 290, Civil Code) — Support 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.
• Barrier Between Illegitimate and Legitimate Families (Article 992, Civil Code) — An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the illegitimate child. This provision excludes Pablo Santero's illegitimate children from the estates of his parents, Pascual Santero and Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.

• "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." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi: the Civil Code, as substantive law, confers a broader right to allowances than the procedural rule, and the latter cannot impair the former.
• "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." — This is the canonical formulation of the doctrine that substantive rights prevail over procedural limitations, applied here to estate allowances.
• "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." — This clarifies that Article 188's grant of allowances during estate liquidation is not conditioned on minority, unemployment, or incapacity, but extends to all children as advances on their hereditary shares.

• Anselma Diaz, et al. vs. Felisa Pamuti-Jardin, G.R. No. 66574-R — A related case in which the Court held that, by virtue of the barrier in Article 992 of the Civil Code, the illegitimate children of Pablo Santero are excluded from the intestate estate of his mother, Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero. This precedent defines the scope of the present dispute: the children's entitlement to allowances runs only against Pablo Santero's estate, not against his parents' estates.

• Article 188, Civil Code — Provides that 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, with excess support amounts deducted from their shares. Applied as the controlling substantive provision granting all children — regardless of age, employment, or marital status — the right to allowances as advances on their inheritance.
• Article 290, Civil Code — Defines support as everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, and medical attendance, and includes the education of the person entitled to be supported until he completes his education or training, even beyond the age of majority. Cited by the private respondents and relied upon by the Court to support the grant of educational allowances.
• Article 992, Civil Code — Establishes the barrier between illegitimate and legitimate families, barring illegitimate children from inheriting ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of their father or mother. Applied to confine the allowance dispute to Pablo Santero's estate and exclude the children from his parents' estates.
• Section 3, Rule 83, Rules of Court — Provides that the widow and minor or incapacitated children of a deceased person shall receive such allowance as provided by law during settlement of the estate. Distinguished and subordinated to the Civil Code provisions as a procedural rule that cannot impair substantive rights.

Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, and Sarmiento, JJ., concurred. Padilla, J., took no part.