Tirol vs. Nolasco

Intervention under Section 1, Rule 19 is not a matter of right but lies in the trial court’s sound discretion, and it must be denied where the intervenor’s claimed right can be fully protected in a separate proceeding and the intervention would unduly delay or prejudice the original parties or inject an independent controversy. On these facts, Sol Nolasco’s claim as Roberto Jr.’s surviving spouse belonged in the settlement of Roberto Jr.’s estate before RTC-101, not in the probate of Gloria and Roberto Sr.’s wills before RTC-218.

Gloria and Roberto Sr. were spouses whose estates are under testate probate; petitioner Martin is one of the children of their son Roberto Jr., while respondent Sol claims to be Roberto Jr.’s surviving spouse. Roberto Jr.’s own estate is under separate intestate settlement. The Rules of Court allocate jurisdiction between the probate court for Gloria and Roberto Sr.’s wills and the settlement court for Roberto Jr.’s estate.

On October 10, 1991, Gloria Tirol died testate, survived by her husband Roberto Tirol, Sr. and their six children: Ruth Tirol-Jarantilla, Cecilia Tirol-Javelosa, Ma. Lourdes Tirol, Ciriaco Tirol, Anna Maria Tirol, and Roberto Tirol, Jr. Roberto Jr. died intestate on April 16, 1995, survived by his four children from his marriage with Cecilia Geronimo — Martin, Zharina, Francis, and Daniel; at the time of his death, his marriage with his wife had been annulled. Roberto Sr. died testate on January 8, 2002, survived by his remaining children Ruth, Cecilia, Marilou, Ciriaco, and Anna, and by his four grandchildren from Roberto Jr.

On April 2, 2002, Martin, Cecilia, and Ciriaco filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 218 (RTC-218) a petition to probate the wills of Gloria and Roberto Sr. in Sp. Proc. No. Q-02-46559; Ruth and Marilou later joined as intervenors, and RTC-218 admitted the wills and designated Martin as Administrator of the estates.

On February 25, 2011, Sol Nolasco filed a Motion for Intervention and Claim-in-Intervention in Sp. Proc. No. Q-02-46559, stating that she had a legal interest in the estates of Gloria and Roberto Sr. because she was the surviving spouse of Roberto Jr., having married him on July 15, 1994. She alleged that Roberto Jr., as one of Gloria’s children, was entitled to at least 1/7 of Gloria’s estate and that, as surviving spouse, she was entitled to the portion belonging to Roberto Jr. equivalent to the legitime of the legitimate children of the decedent; she claimed to be a compulsory heir under Article 887 of the Civil Code and to have an interest or claim in her late husband’s estate.

Martin, as Administrator, opposed the motion, as did Anna, Marilou, Ruth, and Cecilia. The oppositors mainly argued that Sol had no legal interest in the probate of the wills of Gloria and Roberto Sr. and could not represent Roberto Jr., not being a blood relative; they also refused to recognize her as Roberto Jr.’s legal wife. In his Opposition, Martin questioned the validity of Sol’s marriage to Roberto Jr. on the ground that it was bigamous because of Sol’s pre-existing marriage to a certain Raul I. Cimagla on May 15, 1985 at a civil wedding in Branch 3, Municipal Trial Court of Davao City, which had not been nullified before her marriage to Roberto Jr. on July 15, 1994; Sol had attached a Certificate of Marriage showing her marriage to Roberto Jr. was celebrated in La Castellana, Negros Occidental on July 15, 1994.

On March 15, 2011, Sol filed a motion for intervention in the intestate settlement of Roberto Jr.’s estate, docketed as Spec. Proc. No. Q-95-25497 and pending before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 101 (RTC-101); RTC-101 granted the motion in its Order dated May 8, 2012. Zharina had been appointed as Administratrix in the intestate estate of Roberto Jr.

On June 27, 2013, RTC-218 issued an Omnibus Resolution denying, among others, Sol’s Motion for Intervention and to Admit Claim-in-Intervention, stating that she had no legal interest in the case. Sol’s motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated October 27, 2013. Sol then filed with the CA a petition for certiorari questioning the Omnibus Resolution and the Order; Martin filed an opposition. The CA ruled in Sol’s favor, and Martin filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari.

• Compulsory Heir Status: Petitioner Martin argued that the CA erred in finding merit to respondent Sol’s argument that, as widow of Roberto Jr., she is a compulsory heir of Gloria and Roberto Sr. under Article 887 of the Civil Code.
• Protection in Separate Proceeding: Petitioner Martin argued that the CA erred in failing to consider that Sol’s alleged rights and interests over Roberto Jr.’s estate may be fully protected in Spec. Proc. No. Q-95-25497, which directly involves that estate, making her intervention in the probate proceeding unnecessary and superfluous.
• Delay and Prejudice: Petitioner Martin argued that the CA erred in not giving due consideration that Sol’s intervention in Sp. Proc. No. Q-02-46559 will undo 14 years’ worth of resolved incidents and further delay the proceedings.
• Precedents: Petitioner Martin argued that the CA erred in applying Alfelor vs. Halasan and Uy vs. Court of Appeals.
• Validity of Marriage: Petitioner Martin questioned the validity of Sol’s marriage to Roberto Jr. as bigamous because of her pre-existing marriage to Raul I. Cimagla, which had not been nullified before her marriage to Roberto Jr. on July 15, 1994.

• Legal Interest as Surviving Spouse: Respondent Sol maintained that she has a legal interest in the estate of Gloria and Roberto Sr. because she is the surviving spouse of Roberto Jr., who as one of Gloria’s children is entitled to at least 1/7 of Gloria’s estate, and as surviving spouse she is entitled to the portion belonging to Roberto Jr. equivalent to the legitime of the legitimate children of the decedent; she claimed to be a compulsory heir under Article 887 of the Civil Code and to have an interest or claim in the estate of her late husband.

• Intervention; Separate Proceeding: Whether respondent Sol’s intervention in the probate of Gloria and Roberto Sr.’s wills is proper where her claimed right or interest in Roberto Jr.’s estate can be fully protected in the separate settlement proceeding for that estate.
• Jurisdiction over Heirs of Roberto Jr.: Whether RTC-218, in the probate proceeding, may determine who are the lawful heirs of Roberto Jr. while RTC-101 has taken cognizance of the settlement of Roberto Jr.’s estate.

• Intervention; Separate Proceeding: No. Intervention is discretionary and was improper because Sol’s claimed interest could be fully protected in the separate settlement of Roberto Jr.’s estate, and allowing it would inject an independent controversy and delay the probate.
• Jurisdiction over Heirs of Roberto Jr.: No. Under Section 1, Rule 73, RTC-101, as the court first taking cognizance of Roberto Jr.’s estate, has exclusive jurisdiction to determine his heirs; RTC-218 must yield to avoid conflicting dispositions.

• Intervention; Separate Proceeding: Section 1, Rule 19 of the Amended Rules of Civil Procedure allows intervention only with leave of court and requires the court to consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the original parties and whether the intervenor’s rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding. The SC, relying on Ongco vs. Dalisay, stressed that intervention is not a right but lies in the trial court’s sound discretion, and both the legal-interest and no-delay/prejudice requirements must concur. Sol claimed as Roberto Jr.’s surviving spouse an interest in his estate, which would include his share in Gloria’s estate, but Roberto Jr.’s estate was already under settlement before RTC-101, which had granted her motion to intervene; Zharina had been appointed Administratrix. Under Section 2, Rule 87, the administrator may bring or defend actions to protect the deceased’s property or rights, so Sol’s interest could be protected there and she could question any detrimental act of the administrator. Allowing her intervention in the probate proceeding would inject the independent issue of whether she is a lawful heir of Roberto Jr., a matter peculiar to her and unrelated to the original parties, enlarge the issues, and delay the probate; the other heirs’ shares in Gloria and Roberto Sr.’s estates would not be affected by who Roberto Jr.’s heirs are. Thus, the separate-proceeding and no-delay parameters were not met, and intervention was properly denied.
• Jurisdiction over Heirs of Roberto Jr.: Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court provides that the court first taking cognizance of the settlement of a decedent’s estate exercises jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. RTC-101 first took cognizance of Roberto Jr.’s intestate estate, while RTC-218 took cognizance of the testate estates of Gloria and Roberto Sr.; each has exclusive jurisdiction over its respective estate. Under Section 1, Rule 90, a controversy as to who are the lawful heirs is heard and decided by the court with jurisdiction over the estate. Only RTC-101 could determine who Roberto Jr.’s heirs are; RTC-218 could not rule on that issue even if Roberto Jr.’s share in Gloria and Roberto Sr.’s estates had to be determined, and the probate court must yield to the estate settlement court to avoid conflicting dispositions by co-equal courts. The SC also noted that Sol could inherit from Roberto Jr. under Article 887(3), but could not inherit from Roberto Sr. because Roberto Jr. predeceased Roberto Sr., Roberto Jr.’s children would succeed by representation under Article 972, and Sol was related to Roberto Sr. only by affinity; her claim as surviving spouse was in any event disputed by the alleged bigamous prior marriage to Raul I. Cimagla. These circumstances confirmed that her heirship claim belonged in the Roberto Jr. estate proceeding, not the probate of Gloria and Roberto Sr.’s wills.

• Intervention under Rule 19 — Intervention is a remedy by which a third party becomes a litigant to protect or preserve a right or interest affected by the proceedings, but it is not a right and lies in the trial court’s sound discretion. The court must consider both the intervenor’s legal interest and whether intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the original parties and whether the intervenor’s rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding; both requirements must concur. Applied: Sol’s intervention was denied because her rights could be protected in the Roberto Jr. estate proceeding and intervention would delay the probate.
• Exclusive jurisdiction of the court first taking cognizance of estate settlement — Under Section 1, Rule 73, the court first taking cognizance of the settlement of a decedent’s estate exercises jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. Applied: RTC-101 had exclusive jurisdiction over Roberto Jr.’s intestate estate; RTC-218 had exclusive jurisdiction over Gloria and Roberto Sr.’s testate estates.
• Probate court must yield to estate settlement court on heirship — The probate court cannot determine who are the heirs of a person whose estate is under settlement in another court, even if that person’s share in the estate being probated must be determined; the probate court must yield to avoid conflicting dispositions by co-equal courts. Applied: RTC-218 could not determine Roberto Jr.’s heirs; only RTC-101 could.
• Independent controversy cannot be injected by intervention — Intervention is not allowed where it would enlarge the issues and expand the scope of the remedies, or where the intervenor’s case has an aspect peculiar to the intervenor and clearly different from the original parties; the proper course is a separate suit. Applied: Sol’s claim of heirship would inject a fact issue peculiar to her into the probate.
• Administrator’s power to protect the deceased’s rights — Under Section 2, Rule 87, an executor or administrator may bring or defend, in the right of the deceased, actions for causes which survive, to recover or protect the deceased’s property or rights. Applied: Roberto Jr.’s share could be protected by the administratrix in his estate proceeding, making Sol’s intervention superfluous.
• Right of representation — Under Article 972, the right of representation takes place in the direct descending line, but never in the ascending line. Applied: Roberto Jr. predeceased Roberto Sr., so Roberto Jr.’s children succeeded by representation from Roberto Sr.; Sol, related only by affinity, could not inherit from Roberto Sr.

• “Intervention is a remedy by which a third party, not originally impleaded in the proceedings, becomes a litigant therein for a certain purpose: to enable the third party to protect or preserve a right or interest that may be affected by those proceedings. This remedy, however, is not a right.” — The SC defines intervention and clarifies that it is not a matter of right but is subject to the trial court’s discretion.
• “The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor’s rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.” — This is the Rule 19 standard the SC applied to deny Sol’s intervention.
• “Given the exclusivity of jurisdiction granted to the court first taking cognizance of the settlement of a decedent’s estate, RTC-101 has the exclusive jurisdiction over the intestate estate of Roberto Jr. while RTC-218 has exclusive jurisdiction over the testate estates of Gloria and Roberto Sr. Thus, only RTC-101, the court where the settlement of Roberto Jr.’s estate proceeding is pending, has jurisdiction to determine who the heirs of Roberto Jr. are.” — The SC allocates jurisdiction between the two estate proceedings and identifies RTC-101 as the court that may determine Roberto Jr.’s heirs.
• “The issue as to whether respondent Sol is a lawful heir of Roberto Jr. will definitely enlarge the issues in the probate proceeding and involve determination of facts peculiar only to her, which have nothing to do with the original parties.” — The SC explains why Sol’s claim is an independent controversy that cannot be injected into the probate by intervention.

• Ongco vs. Dalisay, G.R. No. 190810, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 232 — Relied on for the definition of intervention and the rule that it is not a right but lies in the trial court’s sound discretion, with both the legal-interest and no-delay/prejudice requirements needing to concur.
• Solivio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83484, February 12, 1990, 182 SCRA 119 — Relied on for the rule that the probate court must yield to the estate settlement court’s determination of heirs to avoid conflicting dispositions by co-equal courts.
• Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Heirs of Estanislao Miñoza, G.R. No. 186045, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 520 — Relied on for the rule that an independent controversy cannot be injected by intervention and that the proper course is a separate suit.

• Section 1, Rule 19, Amended Rules of Civil Procedure (A.M. No. 19-10-20-SC) — Governs who may intervene and requires the court to consider whether intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the original parties and whether the intervenor’s rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding. Applied: Sol’s intervention was denied because her rights could be protected in the separate Roberto Jr. estate proceeding and intervention would delay the probate.
• Section 1, Rule 73, Rules of Court — The court first taking cognizance of the settlement of a decedent’s estate exercises jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. Applied: RTC-101 had exclusive jurisdiction over Roberto Jr.’s intestate estate; RTC-218 had exclusive jurisdiction over Gloria and Roberto Sr.’s testate estates.
• Section 1, Rule 90, Rules of Court — Governs distribution of the residue and provides that a controversy as to who are the lawful heirs is heard and decided as in ordinary cases. Applied: only RTC-101, as the court with jurisdiction over Roberto Jr.’s estate, could determine his heirs.
• Section 2, Rule 87, Rules of Court — An executor or administrator may bring or defend, in the right of the deceased, actions for causes which survive, for the recovery or protection of the deceased’s property or rights. Applied: Roberto Jr.’s share could be protected by the administratrix in his estate proceeding, making Sol’s intervention superfluous.
• Article 887, Civil Code — Lists compulsory heirs, including legitimate children and descendants under paragraph (1) and the widow or widower under paragraph (3). Applied: Roberto Jr. would have inherited from Gloria as a compulsory heir under Article 887(1); Sol would inherit from Roberto Jr. under Article 887(3), but not from Roberto Sr.
• Article 972, Civil Code — Provides that the right of representation takes place in the direct descending line, but never in the ascending line. Applied: Roberto Jr. predeceased Roberto Sr.; Roberto Jr.’s children succeeded by representation from Roberto Sr., while Sol, related only by affinity, could not inherit from Roberto Sr.