Heirs of Bang v. Sy, G.R. No.

114217, October 13, 2009

Facts:
Petitioners Jose, Julian and Oscar are children of the deceased Sy Bang from his first marriage. Other petitioners include
Zenaida and Ma. Emma who are the wife and child of Jose. Respondents Rosauro and eight others are children of Sy
Bang from his second marriage with his surviving spouse respondent Rosita Ferrera -Sy.
Sy Bang died intestate in 1971 and in an out-of-court conference, the children of both marriages divided upon themselves
the control and management of Sy Bangs various businesses. Certain controversies arose which prompted respondent
Rolando to file a Complaint of Partition against the petitioners. Rosita Ferrera-Sy also filed a motion for payment of
widows allowance. From the time of Sy Bangs death until the filing of the motion in 1996, she claimed she was not
given any widows allowance. She cited Rule 83(3) of the RoC.
Petitioners argued that Rule 83(3) is granted only during the settlement of the estate and such allowance shall be taken
from the common mass of property during liquidation. Since this case is a special civil action for partition under Rule
69, Rosita is not entitled to any widows allowance. The Court granted Rositas motion for payment of widows
allowance. Petitioners argued that Rosita had already executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay waiving any claims against the
petitioners in exchange of a parcel of land and 1 million pesos. Respondents countered that Rosita was no longer in full
possession of her mental faculties when she signed the waiver. Petitioners also argued that under Rule 83(3) a widows
allowance can only be paid in an estate proceeding. Even if the case for partition be considered as estate proceedings, only
the trial court hearing the partition case had exclusive jurisdiction to execute the payment of the allowance.
In the meantime, Respondents filed a joint petition for the guardianship of Rosita Ferrer-Sy where Rosauro Sy, who
sought to be named special guardian, filed before the guardianship court a motion to order the deposit of the widows
allowance. The Court ruled in favor of the deposit of the widows allowance. The petitioners all failed to comply with the
ruling. They were all found guilty of contempt of court.
The petitioners, who are now Zenaida and Emma, argued that they should not be made to pay the allowance as they did
not have any participation in the management of the businesses of Sy Bang. Also, the said allowance must come from the
estate of Sy Bang and not from Jose or any of the latters heirs. They also asked that the Court should equally divide the
liability for the widows allowance between the children of the first and second marriages. They also raised the issue of
the validity of Rositas marriage to Sy Bang. They claimed that the documents proving such were falsified.
Issues:
Whether or not the Guardianship court has exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the deposit of the widows allowance?
Whether or not the respondents are also liable for the payment of the widows allowance as heirs of Sy Bang?
Held:
The court hearing the petition for guardianship had limited jurisdiction. It had no jurisdiction to enforce payment of the
widows allowance. The court cited in Rule 83 (3) is the court hearing the settlement of the estate and it is this court
which has jurisdiction over the properties of the estate, to the exclusion of all the other courts. In a cited case, the court
said that the Guardianship Court may order the delivery of the property of the ward to the guardian only if the property
clearly belongs to the ward or if the title has been judicially decided.
The widows allowance is chargeable to the estate of Sy Bang and since petitioners are the one holding the properties
belonging to Sy Bang, they should pay for the allowance.
In order to effect a partition of properties (so that the other children may be made liable), the issue of ownership or coownership must be first resolved in the action for partition. In the settlement of estate proceedings, the distribution of the
estate properties can only be made:

(1) after all the debts, funeral charges, expenses of administration, allowance to the widow, and estate tax have been
paid; or
(2) before payment of said obligations only if the distributees or any of them gives a bond in a sum fixed by the
court conditioned upon the payment of said obligations within such time as the court directs, or when provision is
made to meet those obligations.
That the full extent of Sy Bangs estate has not yet been determined is no excuse from complying with courts order on
this issue. Properties of the estate have already been identified, i.e. those in the names of petitioners, thus these properties
should be made to answer for the widows allowance of Rosita. In any case, the mount Rosita receives for support will be
deducted from her share of the estate.
In view of the delay caused by the petitioners in paying for the allowance, they are ordered to pay the court treble the
costs.