Santero vs CFI of Cavite G.R. No.

L-61700
PARAS, J.:

FACTS:
Pablo Santero, the only legitimate son of Pascual and
Simona Santero, had three children with Felixberta Pacursa
namely, Princesita, Federico and Willie (herein petitioners).
He also had four children with Anselma Diaz namely, Victor,
Rodrigo, Anselmina, and Miguel (herein private
respondents). These children are all natural children since
neither of their mothers was married to their father. In
1973, Pablo Santero died.
During the pendency of the administration proceedings with
the CFI-Cavite involving the estate of the late Pablo Santero,
petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme
Court questioning the decision of CFI-Cavite granting
allowance (allegedly without hearing) in the amount of Php
2,000.00, to private respondents which includes tuition fees,
clothing materials and subsistence out of any available funds
in the hands of the administrator. The petitioners opposed
said decision on the ground that private respondents were
no longer studying, that they have attained the age of
majority, that all of them except for Miguel are gainfully
employed, and the administrator did not have sufficient
funds to cover the said expenses.
Before the Supreme Court could act on saod petition, the
private respondents filed another motion for allowance with
the CFI-Cavite which included Juanita, Estelita and Pedrito,
all surnamed Santero, as children of the late Pablo Santero
with Anselma Diaz, praying that a sum of Php 6,000.00 be
given to each of the seven children as their allowance from

the estate of their father. This was granted by the CFICavite.

Later on, the CFI-Cavite issued an amended order directing
Anselma Diaz, mother of private respondents, to submit a
clarification or explanation as to the additional three children
included in the said motion. She said in her clarification that
in her previous motions, only the last four minor children
were included for support and the three children were then
of age should have been included since all her children have
the right to receive allowance as advance payment of their
shares in the inheritance of Pablo Santero. The CFI-Cavite
issued an order directing the administrator to get back the
allowance of the three additional children based on the
opposition of the petitioners.
ISSUE:
(1)Whether or not the private respondents entitled to
allowance?
(2)Whether or not it was proper for the court a quo to grant
the motion for allowance without hearing?

HELD:
Yes, they are entitled. Being of age, gainfully employed, or
married should not be regarded as the determining factor to
their right to allowance under Articles 290 and 188 of the
New Civil Code.
Records show that a hearing was made. Moreover, what the
said court did was just to follow the precedent of the court
which granted previous allowance and that the petitioners
and private respondents only received Php 1,500.00 each
depending on the availability of funds.