FIRSTDIVISION

[G.R.No.144881.October16,2003]

BETTYT.CHUA,JENNIFERT.CHUALOCSIN,BENISONT.CHUA,andBALDWIN
T. CHUA, petitioners, vs. ABSOLUTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and
COURTOFAPPEALS,respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO,J.:

TheCase
[1]

[2]

Thisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorari toannultheDecision dated9May2000oftheCourt

ofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.57421,aswellastheResolutiondated5September2000denyingthe
[3]
motionforreconsideration.TheCourtofAppealssetasidetheOrder dated7February2000issued
byBranch112oftheRegionalTrialCourtofPasayCitywhichdeniedthepetitionersMotionforthe
ExaminationoftheAdministratrixandOthers(Motion).
AntecedentFacts
Thefactsarenotindispute.AsfoundbytheCourtofAppeals,theessentialantecedentsareas
follows:
Sometimein1999,uponapetitionforlettersofadministrationfiledby[hereinpetitioners]JenniferT.Chua
Locsin,BenisonT.Chua,andBaldwinT.ChuawiththeRegionalTrialCourt,Branch112,PasayCity,presided
by[JudgeManuelP.Dumatol],xxxBettyT.Chuawasappointedasadministratrixoftheintestateestateofthe
deceasedJoseL.Chua.Thereafter,shesubmittedtothetrialcourtaninventoryofalltherealandpersonal
propertiesofthedeceased.
Oneofthecreditorsofthedeceased,[hereinrespondent]AbsoluteManagementCorporation,filedaclaimon
[sic]theestateintheamountofP63,699,437.74.Asadministratrix,BettyT.Chuatentativelyacceptedsaid
amountascorrect,withastatementthatitshallbereducedoradjustedasadditionalevidences[sic]may
warrant.
Intheinterim,AbsoluteManagementCorporationnoticedthatthedeceasedssharesofstockswithAyalaSales
CorporationandAyalaConstructionSupply,Inc.werenotincludedintheinventoryofassets.Asaconsequence,
itfiledamotiontorequireBettyT.Chuatoexplainwhyshedidnotreportthesesharesofstocksinthe
inventory.Throughareply,BettyT.Chuaallegedthattheseshareshadalreadybeenassignedandtransferredto
otherpartiespriortothedeathofherhusband,JoseL.Chua.Sheattachedtoherreplythedeedsofassignment
whichallegedlyconstitutedproofsoftransfer.JudgeDumatolacceptedtheexplanationasmeritorious.
AbsoluteManagementCorporation,suspectingthatthedocumentsattachedtoBettyT.Chuasreplywere
spuriousandsimulated,filedamotionfortheexaminationofthesupposedtransferees.xxxItpremisedits
motiononSection6,Rule87,RevisedRulesofCourt,infra,whichstatesthatwhenapersonissuspectedof
havingconcealed,embezzled,orconveyedawayanyofthepropertiesofthedeceased,acreditormayfilea
complaintwiththetrialcourtandthetrialcourtmaycitethesuspectedpersontoappearbeforeitandbe
examinedunderoathonthematterofsuchcomplaint.Privaterespondentsopposedthemotionontheground
thatthisprovisionbearsnoapplicationtothecase.OnFebruary7,2000,JudgeDumatolissuedtheassailed
[4]
order.
TheRulingoftheTrialCourt
ThetrialcourtsorderdenyingAbsoluteManagementCorporations(Absolute)Motionreads:
ThisresolvestheundatedMotionfortheExaminationoftheAdministratrixandOthers,filedonJanuary11,
2000byclaimantAbsoluteManagementCorporation,towhichpetitioners,throughcounselfiledtheir
opposition,andclaimantAbsoluteManagementCorporationinturnfileditsreply.

FindingnomeritinthemotionfiledbyclaimantAbsoluteManagementCorporation,asitineffectseeksto
engageinafishingexpeditionforevidencetobeusedagainsttheadministratrixandotherswhomitseeksto
examine,itbeingtheconsensusoftheCourtthattheRulesofProceduredoes[sic]notallowthefishingof
evidencetouse[sic]againsttheadverseparty,claimantAbsoluteManagementCorporationsmotionishereby
DENIED.
[5]

SOORDERED.

Aggrieved,AbsolutefiledapetitionforcertiorariandmandamuswiththeCourtofAppeals.
TheRulingoftheCourtofAppeals
InitspetitionforcertiorariandmandamusbeforetheCourtofAppeals,Absoluteclaimedthatthe
trialcourtcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretionindenyingitsMotionandinfailingtoactonitsclaim.
Absoluteallegedthatthetrialcourtdepriveditoftherighttoshowthatthedocumentspresentedby
petitionerswerefictitioustotheprejudiceofAbsolute.
[6]

During the hearing conducted on 9 August 2000 before the members of the Special Sixth
DivisionoftheCourtofAppeals,counselforAbsolutepresentedthefollowingevidencetosupportits
assertionthatthetransfersoftheshareswerespurious:
[7]

1.ExhibitA CertificationfromtheOfficeoftheClerkofCourtoftheRegionalTrialCourtofPasay
CitythatAtty.HilarionA.D.Maagad(thenotarypublicwhonotarizedthequestionedSecretarys
[8]
[9]
Certificate andDeedsofAssignmentofSharesofStock )isnotlistedintheRollofNotaries
PublicfortheCityofPasayparticularlyfortheperiodof19931994,19941995,19981999and
19992000.
[10]

2.ExhibitB CertificationfromtheClerkofCourtoftheRegionalTrialCourtofMakatiCitythatthe
[11]
questioned Secretarys Certificate was not included in the Notarial Report of Atty. Lope M.
Velascofortheyears19981999.
[12]

3. Exhibits B1, B2, and B3

Certification from the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of

[13]

MakatiCitythatthequestionedDeedsofAssignmentofSharesofStock
intheNotarialReportofAtty.LopeM.Velascofortheyears19981999.

werenotincluded

Insettingasidethetrialcourtsorder,theCourtofAppealspointedoutthatthepresentationofthe
deedsofassignmentexecutedbythedecedentinpetitionersfavordoesnotautomaticallynegatethe
existence of concealment. The appellate court stated that it is a common occurrence in estate
proceedings for heirs to execute simulated deeds of transfer which conceal and place properties of
thedecedentbeyondthereachofcreditors.
ThedispositiveportionofthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsreads:
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheorderdatedFebruary7,2000ofrespondentJudgeManuelP.
DumatolisherebySETASIDE.HeisherebyORDEREDtogiveduecoursetopetitionersMotionforthe
ExaminationoftheAdministratrixandOthersandthereafter,todisposeoftheclaimaccordingly.
[14]

SOORDERED.

Hence,thispetition.
Issue
PetitionerswouldlikethisCourttorulewhetherSection6,Rule87oftheRulesofCourt,whichis
the principal basis of Absolutes Motion, is mandatory or merely directory on the trial court. This
perspectivemissesthepoint.TheissueinthiscaseiswhethertheCourtofAppealscorrectlyordered
thetrialcourttogiveduecoursetotheMotionforExamination.
Petitioners also point out that the Court of Appeals should have dismissed Absolutes petition
becauseoftheseproceduralinfirmities:
1. Counsel for Absolute, not the proper officers of Absolute, filed the Certification against Forum
Shopping
2. Absolute attached only a duplicate original copy of the challenged order of the trial court to the
petitionsubmittedtotheCourtofAppealsand
[15]

3.NoproperproofofserviceaccompaniedthepetitionsubmittedtotheCourtofAppeals.

TheRulingoftheCourt
Thepetitionhasnomerit.
WhethertheCourtofAppealscorrectlyorderedtheTrialCourt
togiveduecoursetoAbsolutesMotionforExamination
Section6,Rule87oftheRulesofCourtprovides:
SEC.6.Proceedingswhenpropertyconcealed,embezzled,orfraudulentlyconveyed.Ifanexecutoror
administrator,heir,legatee,creditor,orotherindividualinterestedintheestateofthedeceased,complainstothe
courthavingjurisdictionoftheestatethatapersonissuspectedofhavingconcealed,embezzled,orconveyed
awayanyofthemoney,goods,orchattelsofthedeceased,orthatsuchpersonhasinhispossessionorhas
knowledgeofanydeed,conveyance,bond,contract,orotherwritingwhichcontainsevidenceofortendsto
disclosetheright,title,interest,orclaimofthedeceased,thecourtmaycitesuchsuspectedpersontoappear
beforeitandmayexaminehimonoathonthematterofsuchcomplaintandifthepersonsocitedrefusesto
appear,ortoansweronsuchexaminationorsuchinterrogatoriesasareputtohim,thecourtmaypunishhimfor
contempt,andmaycommithimtoprisonuntilhesubmitstotheorderofthecourt.Theinterrogatoriesputto
anysuchperson,andhisanswersthereto,shallbeinwritingandshallbefiledintheclerksoffice.
Section6ofRule87seekstosecureevidencefrompersonssuspectedofhavingpossessionor
knowledge of the properties left by a deceased person, or of having concealed, embezzled or
[16]
conveyedanyofthepropertiesofthedeceased.
Thecourtwhichacquiresjurisdictionoverthepropertiesofadeceasedpersonthroughthefiling
of the corresponding proceedings has supervision and control over these properties.The trial court
hastheinherentdutytoseetoitthattheinventoryoftheadministratorlistsalltheproperties,rights
andcreditswhichthelawrequirestheadministratortoincludeinhisinventory.Incompliancewiththis
duty, the court also has the inherent power to determine what properties, rights and credits of the
deceasedtheadministratorshouldincludeorexcludeintheinventory.Anheirorpersoninterestedin
thepropertiesofadeceasedmaycallthecourtsattentionthatcertainproperties,rightsorcreditsare
left out from the inventory. In such a case, it is likewise the courts duty to hear the observations of
suchparty.Thecourthasthepowertodetermineifsuchobservationsdeserveattentionandifsuch
[17]
propertiesbelongprimafacietotheestate.
However, in such proceedings the trial court has no authority to decide whether the properties,
realorpersonal,belongtotheestateortothepersonsexamined.Ifaftersuchexaminationthereis
goodreasontobelievethatthepersonexaminediskeepingpropertiesbelongingtotheestate,then
[18]
the administrator should file an ordinary action in court to recover the same. Inclusion of certain
sharesofstockbytheadministratorintheinventorydoesnotautomaticallydeprivetheassigneesof
their shares. They have a right to be heard on the question of ownership, when that property is
[19]

properlypresentedtothecourt.

Inthepresentcase,someofthetransfereesofthesharesofstockdonotappeartobeheirsof
[20]

thedecedent.Neither dotheyappear to be parties to the intestate proceedings. Third persons to

whomthedecedentsassetshadbeenconveyedmaybecitedtoappearincourtandexaminedunder
oath as to how they came into possession of the decedents assets. In case of fraudulent
conveyances,aseparateactionisnecessarytorecovertheseassets.

[21]

Taken in this light, there is no reason why the trial court should disallow the examination of the
alleged transferees of the shares of stocks. This is only for purposes of eliciting information or
securing evidence from persons suspected of concealing or conveying some of the decedents
properties to the prejudice of creditors.Petitioners admission that these persons are the decedents
assignees does not automatically negate concealment of the decedents assets on their part. The
assignmentmightbesimulatedsoastoplacethesharesbeyondthereachofcreditors.Incasethe
shares are eventually included in the estate, this inventory is merely provisional and is not
determinative of the issue of ownership. A separate action is necessary for determination of
ownershipandrecoveryofpossession.

[22]

WhetherthePetitionsubmittedtotheCourtofAppealssuffered
fromproceduralinfirmitieswhichmerititsdismissal
The petition filed before the Court of Appeals contained a certificate of nonforum shopping
executedbycounselandnotbytheauthorizedofficerofAbsolute.However,thesubsequentfilingof
an affidavit of nonforum shopping signed by the corporate director cured this defect. In Maricalum

[23]

MiningCorp.v.NationalLaborRelationsCommission, theCourtheldthataslightdelayinthe
filingofanaffidavitofnonforumshoppingshouldnotdefeattheaction.Aliberalinterpretationofthe
rules is more in keeping with the objective to secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of
[24]

every action and proceeding. As held in Loyola v. Court of Appeals, substantial compliance is
sufficient. While submission of the certificate of nonforum shopping is mandatory, nonetheless we
must not interpret the requirement too literally to defeat the objective of preventing the undesirable
[25]

practiceofforumshopping. Technicalrulesofprocedureshouldbeusedtopromote,notfrustrate,
justice.Whiletheswiftuncloggingofcourtdocketsisalaudableobjective,thegrantingofsubstantial
justiceisanevenmoreurgentideal.

[26]

Petitioners claim that the attachment of a mere duplicate original copy of the assailed order
violatestheexpressmandateofSection1,Rule65,ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure.This rule
states that the petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or
resolutionsubjectthereof.However,underSection3,Rule46ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure,as
amended by Circular No. 3998, either a certified true copy or a duplicate original copy may be
attachedtothepetition.
The affidavit of service executed by petitioners counsel stating that he served a copy of the
petition by registered mail to respondents with the corresponding registry receipts constitutes
[27]
sufficient proof of service. This complies with Section 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Lastly,petitionersquoteArcegaandMirandav.PecsonandArcega
offilingapetitionforcertioraribeforetheCourtofAppeals:

[28]

toquestionthepropriety

WithoutdecidingwhethertheproceedingthusconductedcomplieswiththeprovisionofSection6ofRule88
[Section6,Rule87underthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure],whichsaysthatthecourtmaycitesuchsuspected
persontoappearbeforeitandmayexaminehimonoathonthematterofsuchcomplaint,andwithoutdeciding
whetherthedutyofthejudgetomaketheexaminationisornotmandatory,wearesatisfiedthatcertiorariisnot
anappropriateremedyundertheaforecitedrule.(Emphasissupplied)
ThefactsinArcegaarenotonallfourswiththefactsintheinstantcase.InArcega, the judge
granted the examination but only with respect to three of the several lots involved. In the present
case,therewasanabsoluterefusalbythetrialcourttoconductanexaminationonthegroundthatit
would constitute a fishing expedition of evidence that could be used against the administratrix. In
Arcega, the trial court issued an order in favor of the person suspected of having concealed
properties of the estate and against the special administratrix and the judicial receiver. The special
administratrix had the remedy of filing another case to recover such properties in the name of thee
[29]
state.
In the present case, Absolute as a creditor of the decedent filed the petition after the trial court
denied its Motion for examination. Absolute questioned the ruling in favor of the administratrix and
heirsofthedecedent.Althoughasacreditor,Absolutedoeshavetheremedyoffilinganothercaseto
[30]
recover such properties, its Motion for examination was intended merely to investigate and take
[31]

testimony in preparation for an independent action. Aside from the administratrix and the heirs of
the decedent, Absolute also sought to examine the supposed assignees of the decedents shares,
whoarethirdpersonswithrespecttotheprobateproceedings.TheMotionwasapreparatorymove
sanctioned by the Rules of Court. The denial of Absolutes Motion was an interlocutory order not
subjecttoappeal.Theorderofdenialmay,however,bechallengedbeforeasuperiorcourtthrougha
petitionforcertiorariunderRule65.
WHEREFORE,weDENY the petition for lack of merit.The Decision of the Court ofAppeals in
CAG.R.SPNo.57421dated9May2000aswellastheResolutiondated5September2000denying
themotionforreconsiderationisAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.(Chairman),Vitug,andAzcuna,JJ.,concur.
YnaresSantiago,J.,onleave.
[1]
[2]

[3]
[4]
[5]

UnderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.
Penned by Associate Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, with Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. andWenceslao I.
Agnir,Jr.,concurring.
PennedbyJudgeManuelP.Dumatol.
Rollo,pp.2123.
Ibid.,p.83.

[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

CARollo,pp.116129.
Ibid.,p.111.
Ibid.,p.18.
Ibid.,pp.1921.

[10]
[11]

Ibid.,p.112.

Ibid.,p.22.

[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]

[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]

Ibid.,pp.113115.
Ibid.,pp.2325.
Rollo,p.30.
Ibid.,pp.1516.
Modestov.Modesto,etal.,105Phil.1067(1959).SeealsoValerav.Inserto,No.L56504,7May1987,149SCRA533.
Garciav.Garcia,67Phil.353(1939).SeealsoBolisayv.Alcid,No.L45494,31August1978,85SCRA213.
Modestov.Modesto,etal.,supranote16.
Alafrizv.Mina,28Phil.137(1914).
CA Rollo, pp. 1821.The decedents shares in Ayala Sales Corporation were allegedly transferred to Betty C. Chua,
RositaC.Tin,andJerryC.Tin.
Sebialv.Sebial,No.L23419,27June1975,64SCRA385.
Valerav.Inserto,supranote16.
358Phil.864(1998).
315Phil.529(1995).
Bernardov.NLRC,325Phil.371(1996).
ShipsideIncorporatedv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.143377,20February2001,352SCRA334.
Rollo,pp.2930.
78Phil.743(1947).
Modestov.Modesto,etal.,supranote16.
Section10,Rule87states:

SEC.10.Whencreditormaybringaction.Lienforcosts.Whenthereissuchadeficiencyofassets,andthedeceasedin
hislifetimehadmadeorattemptedsuchaconveyance,asisstatedinthelastprecedingsection,andtheexecutor
or administrator has not commenced the action therein provided for, any creditor of the estate may, with the
permissionofthecourt,commenceandprosecutetofinaljudgment,inthenameoftheexecutororadministrator,a
like action for the recovery of the subject of the conveyance or attempted conveyance for the benefit of the
creditors. But the action shall not be commenced until the creditor has filed in a court a bond executed to the
executor or administrator, in an amount approved by the judge, conditioned to indemnify the executor or
administrator against the costs and expenses incurred by reason of such action.Such creditor shall have a lien
uponanyjudgmentrecoveredbyhimintheactionforsuchcostsandotherexpensesincurredthereinasthecourt
deemsequitable.Wheretheconveyanceorattemptedconveyancehasbeenmadebythedeceasedinhislifetime
in favor of the executor or administrator, the action which a creditor may bring shall be in the name of all the
creditors,andpermissionofthecourtandfilingofbondasaboveprescribed,arenotnecessary.
[31]

Mallariv.Mallari,92Phil.694(1952).SeeOSCARM.HERRERA,3AREMEDIALLAW141(1996).