Ventura vs Ventura

Estate of Gregorio Ventura, Maria Ventura (illegitimate daughter)

Vs Gregoria Ventura (legitimate daughter)+ Husband

Facts:

Gregorio Ventura filed a petition for the probate of his will which it names Maria
Ventura to be appointed to be the executrix of his will and the administratix of his
estate. Gregorio died and appellant Maria filed a motion for her appointment and
the issuant of the letters testamentary in her favor. However, Maria proved to be
incompetent when she filed her accounts of administration by not reflecting the true
income of the estate and the expenses which allegedly are not administration
expenses; as contended by Gregoria Ventura. Maria, in defense, filed a motion to
hold in abeyance the approval of the accounts of administration OR to have their
approval without the opposition of Gregoria on the ground that she be adjudged as
an adulterous child of the testator, thus, not entitled to inherit nor have a say in the
approval of the counts of administration.

Gregoria filed a motion to have Maria removed as executrix for being grossly
incompetent, that she maliciously concealed certain properties of the estate in the
inventory, being an illegitimate daughter, has no harmonious relations with the
appellees, and that she neglected to render accounts. The motion was granted and
Gregoria was appointed instead.

This is an appeal of Maria of said decision.

Issue:

Whether or not the removal of Maria Ventura as executrix is legally justified

Held:

The issue was held moot and academic. Because of a subsequent case which held
that Gregoria Ventura as a legitimate daughter.

Rule 78 Sec 6 of the Rules of Court applies in the Case (Next of Kin rule when no
executor is not named/imcompetent)

The nearest of kin is defeined as whose interest in the estate is more

preponderant, is preferred in the choice of the administrator. Among members of a
class, the strongest ground for preference is the amount or preponderance of
interest. As between next of kin, the nearest of kin is to be preferred
Since it was held that Gregoria is the legitimate daughter, she is the nearest of kin
and are entitled to preference over the illegitimate child Maria. Therefore, the
person to be appointed as administrator are either the surviving spouse of Gregoria
as nearest of kin in the discretion of the court.
Vda de Manalo vs C.A.

Facts:

Troadio Manalo (deceased) died and left several properties to his wife and 11
children. 8 of the children petitioned for the judicial settlement of the estate of in
the RTC of Manila & to appoint Romeo Manalo as the administrator of the properties
(Petition for Issuance of Letters of Administration, Settlement and Distribution of
Estate = ILASD). The trial court issued an order setting the petition for hearing
where it declared the whole world in default (except the government). This order
was then set aside by the trial court upon the motion of petitioners
(oppositors/respondents together with CA in the case title)(the other 3 children).The
petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA that there was no
earnest effort toward compromise among members of the same family and the case
was actually an ordinary civil action instead of a special proceeding; where the CA
dismissed the petition in its resolution.

Issue:

Whether or not a petition for ILASD is an ordinary civil action

Whether or not the petitioners were correct in upholding the failure of the CA to
make earnest effort toward compromise among members of the same family (Sec
222 Civil Code)

Held:

No

The determination of the nature of an action or proceeding (the averments and

character of the relief sought) shall be controlling. The current petition contains the
sufficient jurisdictional facts required in a petition for the settlement of estate of a
deceased person (including fact of death, resident in the country, enumeration of
legal heirs, list of properties, reliefs prayed for).

Therefore, the petitioners may not validly take refuge under the provisions of Rule 1
Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court to justify the invocation of Art 222 of the Civil code for
the dismissal of the petition for settlement of the estate of the deceased.
Oscar Reyes vs RTC Makati/Zenith Insurance Corp/Rodrigo Reyes

Facts:

Oscar and Rodrigo are siblings. They owned Zenith Insurance Corp together with
Pedro and Anastacia (deceased). Pedro and Anastacia died. Pedro had his estated
partitioned his share in the company in favor of his heirs while the Anastacia did
not. Rodrigo filed a complained with the SEC against Oscar for fraudulently
appropriating the shared of stock of the deceased in his favor without account them
for. The complaint stated that it is a derivative suit to obtain accounting for the
funds and assets of Zenith and to determine the shares of stock odf the deceased
that were arbitrarily and fraudulently appropriated for by Oscar. Oscar answered
with a counterclaim that declared against any illegality in his acquisition of the
shares in question. He also questioned the jurisdiction of the SEC for being able to
entertain the complaint since it pertains to the settlement of the estate of the
deceased. The case was transferred to the RTC Makati . Rodrigo filed a motion to
declare complaint as nuisance or harassment suit and must be dismissed. The RTC
denied the motion. The CA denied the same.

Issue:

Whether or not the complaint is a mere nuisance/harassment suit and should be

dismissed under the Interim Rules of Procedure of Intra-Corporate Controversies

Whether or not the RTC, acting as a special commercial court ,has jurisdiction over
the case, it being a derivative suit in nature

Held:

1. Yes. Rule 8 Sec 5 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that in all averments of
fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake must be stated
with particularity. Mere allegations of such without supporting evidence does not
state an effective cause of action

2. No. The complaint is not a derivative suit since Rodrigo is not a shareholder of the
shares in question, the same belonging to Anastacia. He only stands as a
transferee-heir. He also should have exhausted all the remedies within the
corporation by making sufficient demand upon the directors, etc. for relief. Lastly,
there was no injury to Rodrigo for the actions of Oscar regardless if his deeds were
illegal. The damage was against the co-heirs and not the corporation and especially
not to Rodrigo (Walang nawala sa shares)
Joselito Musni Puno vs Puno Enterprises

Facts:

Carlos L. Puno was an incorporator of Puno Enterprises. He died on June 25, 1963.

Petitioner initiated a complaint for specific performance against the respondent on

March 14, 2003. He claims to be the son of the deceased. He claims to obtain all the
rights and privileges of his late father as stockholder. The complaint also prayed to
allow the petitioner to inspect the corporate book and give him all the profits and
earnings entitled to his late father.

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of cause of action since it is

still not established whether petitioner is really the son of the late Puno. Since the
petitioner was not a stockholder and is merely claiming the rights as the son of the
late Puno, his first remedy should be to petition for the settlement of the estate of
the deceased.

Issue:

Whether or not an individual automatically becomes a stockholder as an heir of a

deceased stockholder.

Held:

No. Upon the death of a shareholder, the heirs do not automatically become
stockholders of the corporation and acquire the rights and privileges of the
deceased as shareholder of the corporation. The stocks must be distributed first to
the heirs in estate proceedings, and the transfer of the stocks must be recorded in
the books of the corporation. Section 63 of the Corporation Code provides that no
transfer shall be valid, except as between the parties, until the transfer is recorded
in the books of the corporation. During such interim period, the heirs stand as the
equitable owners of the stocks, the executor or administrator duly appointed by the
court being vested with the legal title to the stock. Until a settlement and division of
the estate is effected, the stocks of the decedent are held by the administrator or
executor. Consequently, during such time, it is the administrator or executor who is
entitled to exercise the rights of the deceased as stockholder.

Corollary to this is the doctrine that a determination of whether a person, claiming

proprietary rights over the estate of a deceased person, is an heir of the deceased
must be ventilated in a special proceeding instituted precisely for the purpose of
settling the estate of the latter. The status of an illegitimate child who claims to be
an heir to a decedents estate cannot be adjudicated in an ordinary civil action, as in
a case for the recovery of property. The doctrine applies to the instant case, which is
one for specific performance to direct respondent corporation to allow petitioner to
exercise rights that pertain only to the deceased and his representatives.
Celestino Balus vs Saturnino Balus and Leonarda Balus

Facts:

The parties are the children of deceased Rufo Balus. Rufo mortgaged a parcel of
land as a security for a loan he obtained from the Rural Bank of Maigo, Lanao del
Norte. He failed to pay and the land was foreclosed and sold to the bank. The land
was not redeemed within the period of time, and thus the sheriff executed a
Definite Deed of Sale and subsequently a title in the name of the bank.

The parties executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate to adjudicate the each of

them 1/3 portion of the subject land despite admitting that they knew that the said
land was mortgaged, foreclosed, sold, and owned by the bank.Subsequently,
respondents bought the property from the bank after 3 years from the execution of
the extrajudicial settlement. A TCT was issued in the name of respondents.
Petitioners then continued possession of the subject lot.

Respondents filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against

petitioner for refusing surrender possession of the same to them despite the
obvious TCT named before the respondents. The RTC held the right of the petitioner
to purchase from them his share in the disputed property for it is stated in their
extrajudicial settlement before the respondents bought back the land from the
bank. They appealed in the CA.

The CA ruled that when they did not redeem the repurchase of the property within
the redemption period and allowed the bank to obtain it legally, their co-ownership
was extinguished (nung binili na ulet nung respondent ung lupa, sole owner na sya).
Thus, this petition for review on certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not co-ownership persisted between the parties after the bank obtained
the legal title of the property.

Held:

No. Rufo (deceased) is not the owner at the time of his death. Succession is the
transfer of all property and transmissible rights and obligations of the deceased to
his heirs. The property was not owned by the deceased at the time of his death.
Therefore, the subject land is no longer part of his estate to which his heirs may
claim their rights to. In other words, the parties never inherited the land from their
father.