IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE

ESTATE OF CRISTINA AGUINALDO-

SUNTAY;

EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III

v.
ISABEL COJUANGCO-SUNTAY
G.R. No. 183053 June 16, 2010
 PARTIES
• Petitioner: Emilio Suntay III – illegitimate son of Emilio I and adoptive
son and grandson of Federico Suntay, surviving spouse of the
deceased, illegitimate grandson of the deceased
• Respondent: Isabel Cojuanco- Suntay, legitimate daughter of Emilio I,
granddaughter of the deceased.
• Cristina Suntay: deceased grandmother of the petitioner and
respondent; the appointment of her estate administrator is the main
issue in this case.
• Federico Suntay- Surviving spouse, appoints petitioner as
administrator in his stead.
 Facts
• On June 4, 1990, Cristina Suntay dies.
• On September 27, 1993, Federico adopted their illegitimate grandchildren,
Emilio III and Nenita
• On October 26, 1995, respondent filed a petition for the issuance of letters
of administration in her favor.
• Federico filed his opposition on December 21, 1995
• On March 13, 1999, Federico nominated his adoptive son, petitioner as
administrator of the decedent’s estate on his behalf. Petitioner
subsequently files a motion to intervene.
• In the course of the proceedings, on November 13, 2000, Federico died
Regional trial court and Court of appeals
• The Regional Trial Court denies the petition of respondent and
appoints the petitioner as administrator of Cristina’s estate.
• Respondent files a petition for review on the Court of appeals which
reversed the decision of the lower court.
• The Court of appeals zeroed in on the illegitimacy of petitioner to
represent his deceased father, Emilio I to represent his mother’s
estate.
• CA further explained that the appointment of the petitioner as
administrator by Federico was based upon a suspensive condition
which was invalidated as Federico died before his appointment as
administrator.
Issue: Who between the petitioner and
respondent is better situated to administer the
decedent’s estate?
 Supreme Court Ruling
• The Supreme Court ruled that both the petitioner and respondent
should be co-administrators of the estate to represent the interests of
their respective siblings.
• The CA was wrong to rely on the illegitimacy of the petitioner and the
as he was an adopted son of Federico and a direct heir which had as
much apparent interest herein as respondent.
• The CA should not have treated the appointment of petitioner as a
suspensive condition as Federico being the surviving spouse has the
right of succession over the exclusive property of the decedent.
Rule 78 section 6
• SEC. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. If no executor is named in the will,
or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a person
dies intestate, administration shall be granted:

• (a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or both, in the discretion
of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of kin, requests to have
appointed, if competent and willing to serve;

• (b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or the person selected by
them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or widow, or next of kin, neglects for thirty
(30) days after the death of the person to apply for administration or to request that
administration be granted to some other person, it may be granted to one or more of the
principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve;

• (c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be granted to such other
person as the court may select
The selection of administrator lies in the
sound discretion of the court
• However, the order of preference is not absolute for it depends on the
attendant facts and circumstances of each case. Jurisprudence has long
held that the selection of an administrator lies in the sound discretion of
the trial court. In the main, the attendant facts and circumstances of this
case necessitate, at the least, a joint administration by both respondent
and Emilio III of their grandmothers, Cristinas, estate.
• The subject estate in this case calls to the succession other putative heirs,
including another illegitimate grandchild of Cristina and Federico, Nenita
Taedo, but who was likewise adopted by Federico, and the two (2) siblings
of respondent Isabel, Margarita and Emilio II. In all, considering the
conflicting claims of the putative heirs, and the unliquidated conjugal
partnership of Cristina and Federico which forms part of their respective
estates, we are impelled to move in only one direction, i.e., joint
administration of the subject estate.