5/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 413

. 413, C B 16, 2003 547

Ch a . Ab ol e Managemen Co o a ion

*
G.R. No. 144881. October 16, 2003.

BETTY T. CHUA, JENNIFER T. CHUA-LOCSIN, BENISON T.

CHUA, and BALDWIN T. CHUA, petitioners, . ABSOLUTE
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and COURT OF APPEALS,
respondents.

Remedial La ; Se lemen f E a e ; Admini a ; T ial c ha

he inhe en d ee i ha he in en f he admini a li all
he e ie , igh and c edi hich he la e i e he admini a
incl de in hi in en ; C al ha he inhe en e de e mine
ha e ie , igh and c edi f he decea ed he admini a h ld
incl de e cl de in he in en .—The court which acquires jurisdiction
over the properties of a deceased person through the ling of the
corresponding proceedings has supervision and control over these
properties. The trial court has the inherent duty to see to it that the inventory
of the administrator lists all the properties, rights and credits which the law
requires the administrator to include in his inventory. In compliance with
this duty, the court also has the inherent power to determine what properties,
rights and credits of the deceased the administrator should include or
exclude in the inventory. An heir or person interested in the properties of a
deceased may call the court s attention that certain properties, rights or
credits are left out from the inventory. In such a case, it is likewise the
court s duty to hear the observations of such party. The court has the power
to determine if such observations deserve attention and if such properties
belong ima facie to the estate.
Same; Same; Same; T ial c ha n a h i decide he he he
e ie , eal e nal, bel ng he e a e he e n
e amined; If af e ch e amina i n he e i g d ea n belie e ha he
e n e amined i kee ing e ie bel nging he e a e, hen he
admini a h ld le an dina ac i n in c ec e he ame.—
However, in such proceedings the trial court has no authority to decide
whether the properties, real or personal, belong to the estate or to the
persons examined. If after such examination there is good reason to believe
that the person examined is keeping properties belonging to the estate, then
the administrator should le an ordinary action in court to recover the same.
Inclusion of certain shares of stock by the administrator in the inventory

. a. . / a / /000001794678 bb3 9159857003600 b002 009 / /? =Fa 1/12

5/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 413

does not automatically deprive the assignees of their shares. They have a
right to be heard on the question of ownership, when that property is
properly presented to the court.

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

54

548 S PREME CO RT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ch a . Ab ol e Managemen Co po a ion

Same; Same; Same; In ca e f f a d len c n e ance , a e a a e

ac i n i nece a ec e he e a e . —In the present case, some of
the transferees of the shares of stock do not appear to be heirs of the
decedent. Neither do they appear to be parties to the intestate proceedings.
Third persons to whom the decedent s assets had been conveyed may be
cited to appear in court and examined under oath as to how they came into
possession of the decedent s assets. In case of fraudulent conveyances, a
separate action is necessary to recover these assets.
Same; Ac i n ; F m Sh ing; A ligh dela in he ling f an
af da i f n n-f m h ing h ld n defea he ac i n; While
bmi i n f he ce i ca e f n n-f m h ing i manda ,
n ne hele C m n in e e he e i emen li e all defea
he bjec i e f e en ing he nde i able ac ice f f m- h ing.—
The petition led before the Court of Appeals contained a certi cate of non-
forum shopping executed by counsel and not by the authorized of cer of
Absolute. However, the subsequent ling of an af davit of non-forum
shopping signed by the corporate director cured this defect. In Ma ical m
Mining C . . Na i nal Lab Rela i n C mmi i n, the Court held that a
slight delay in the ling of an af davit of non-forum shopping should not
defeat the action. A liberal interpretation of the rules is more in keeping
with the objective to secure a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of
every action and proceeding. As held in L la . C f A eal ,
substantial compliance is suf cient. While submission of the certi cate of
nonforum shopping is mandatory, nonetheless we must not interpret the
requirement too literally to defeat the objective of preventing the
undesirable practice of forum shopping. Technical rules of procedure should
be used to promote, not frustrate, justice. While the swift unclogging of
court dockets is a laudable objective, the granting of substantial justice is an
even more urgent ideal.

PETITION for revie on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
. a. . / a / /000001794678 bb3 9159857003600 b002 009 / /? =Fa 2/12
5/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 413

V a , Lega da & A c a e for petitioners.

The La F fA A. Na a III & A c a e for
private respondent.

54

. 413, C B 16, 2003 549

Ch a . Ab ol e Managemen Co o a ion

CARPIO, J.:

The Case
1 2
This is a petition for revie on ce a to annul the Decision
dated 9 Ma 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
57421, as ell as the Resolution dated 5 September 2000 den ing
the motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals set aside the
3
Order dated 7 Februar 2000 issued b Branch 112 of the Regional
Trial Court of Pasa Cit hich denied the petitioners Motion for
the E amination of the Administratri and Others ( Motion ).

Antecedent Facts

The facts are not in dispute. As found b the Court of Appeals, the
essential antecedents are as follo s:

Sometime in 1999, upon a petition for letters of administration led by

[herein petitioners] Jennifer T. Chua-Locsin, Benison T. Chua, and Baldwin
T. Chua with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 112, Pasay City, presided by
[Judge Manuel P. Dumatol], x x x Betty T. Chua was appointed as
administratrix of the intestate estate of the deceased Jose L. Chua.
Thereafter, she submitted to the trial court an inventory of all the real and
personal properties of the deceased.
One of the creditors of the deceased, [herein respondent] Absolute
Management Corporation, led a claim on [sic] the estate in the amount of
P63,699,437.74. As administratrix, Betty T. Chua tentatively accepted said
amount as correct, with a statement that it shall be reduced or adjusted as
additional evidences [ ic] may warrant.
In the interim, Absolute Management Corporation noticed that the
deceased s shares of stocks with Ayala Sales Corporation and Ayala
Construction Supply, Inc. were not included in the inventory of assets. As a
consequence, it led a motion to require Betty T. Chua to explain why she
did not report these shares of stocks in the inventory. Through a reply, Betty
T. Chua alleged that these shares had already been assigned and transferred
to other parties prior to the death of her husband, Jose L. Chua. She attached
to her reply the deeds of assignment which allegedly

. a. . / a / /000001794678 bb3 9159857003600 b002 009 / /? =Fa 3/12

5/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 413

_______________

1 U de R e 45 f eR e fC .
2 Pe ed b A cae J ce O a d D. Agca , A cae J ce Ma S.
V a a a, J . a d We ce a I. Ag , J ., c c g.
3 Pe ed b J dge Ma e P. D a .

550

550 S PREME CO RT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Ch a . Ab ol e Managemen Co po a ion

constituted proofs of transfer. Judge Dumatol accepted the explanation as

meritorious.
Absolute Management Corporation, suspecting that the documents
attached to Betty T. Chua s reply were spurious and simulated, led a
motion for the examination of the supposed transferees. x x x It premised its
motion on Section 6, Rule 87, Revised Rules of Court, inf a, which states
that when a person is suspected of having concealed, embezzled, or
conveyed away any of the properties of the deceased, a creditor may le a
complaint with the trial court and the trial court may cite the suspected
person to appear before it and be examined under oath on the matter of such
complaint. Private respondents opposed the motion on the ground that this
provision bears no application to the case. On February 7, 2000, Judge
4
Dumatol issued the assailed order.

The Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court s order den ing Absolute Management Corporation s

( Absolute ) Motion reads:

This resolves the undated Motion for the Examination of the

Administratrix and Others, led on January 11, 2000 by claimant Absolute
Management Corporation, to which petitioners, through counsel led their
opposition, and claimant Absolute Management Corporation in turn led its
reply.
Finding no merit in the motion led by claimant Absolute Management
Corporation, as it in effect seeks to engage in a shing expedition for
evidence to be used against the administratrix and others whom it seeks to
examine, it being the consensus of the Court that the Rules of Procedure
does [ ic] not allow the shing of evidence to use [ ic] against the adverse
party, claimant Absolute Management Corporation s motion is hereby
DENIED.
5
SO ORDERED.

Aggrieved, Absolute led a petition for certiorari and mandamus

ith the Court of Appeals.

. a. . / a / /000001794678 bb3 9159857003600 b002 009 / /? =Fa 4/12

5/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 413

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Court of

Appeals, Absolute claimed that the trial court committed grave

4 R , . 21-23.
5 Ibid., . 83.

551

. 413, C B 16, 2003 551

Ch a . Ab ol e Managemen Co o a ion

abuse of discretion in den ing its Motion and in failing to act on its
claim. Absolute alleged that the trial court deprived it of the right to
sho that the documents presented b petitioners ere ctitious to
the prejudice of Absolute.
6
During the hearing conducted on 9 August 2000 before the
members of the Special Si th Division of the Court of Appeals,
counsel for Absolute presented the follo ing evidence to support its
assertion that the transfers of the shares ere spurious:

1. E hibit A Certi cation from the Of ce of the Clerk of

Court of the Regional Trial Court of Pasa Cit that Att .
Hilarion A.D. Maagad (the notar public ho notari ed the
questioned Secretar s Certi cate and Deeds of
Assignment of Shares of Stock ) is not listed in the Roll of
Notaries Public for the Cit of Pasa particularl for the
period of 1993-1994, 1994-1995, 1998-1999 and 1999-
2000.
10
2. E hibit B Certi cation from the Clerk of Court of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati Cit that the questioned
11
Secretar s Certi cate as not included in the Notarial
Report of Att . Lope M. Velasco for the ears 1998-1999.
12
3. E hibits B-1 , B-2 , and B-3 Certi cation from the
Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Makati Cit
that the
13
questioned Deeds of Assignment of Shares of
Stock ere not included in the Notarial Report of Att .
Lope M. Velasco for the ears 1998-1999.

In setting aside the trial court s order, the Court of Appeals pointed
out that the presentation of the deeds of assignment e ecuted b the
decedent in petitioners favor does not automaticall negate the
e istence of concealment. The appellate court stated that it is a

. a. . / a / /000001794678 bb3 9159857003600 b002 009 / /? =Fa 5/12

5/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 413

common occurrence in estate proceedings for heirs to e ecute

simulated deeds of transfer hich conceal and place properties of
the decedent be ond the reach of creditors.

6 CA R , . 116-129.
Ibid., . 111.
Ibid., . 18.
Ibid., . 19-21.
10 Ibid., . 113.
11 Ibid., . 22.
12 Ibid., . 113-115.
13 Ibid., . 23-25.

552

552 C A A
Ch a . Ab ol e Managemen Co o a ion

The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals

reads:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The order dated February 7,

2000 of respondent Judge Manuel P. Dumatol is hereby SET ASIDE. He is
hereby ORDERED to give due course to petitioner s Motion for the
Examination of the Administratrix and Others and thereafter, to dispose of
the claim accordingly.
14
SO ORDERED.

Hence, this petition.

Issue

Petitioners ould like this Court to rule hether Section 6, Rule 87

of the Rules of Court, hich is the principal basis of Absolute s
Motion, is mandator or merel director on the trial court. This
perspective misses the point. The issue in this case is hether the
Court of Appeals correctl ordered the trial court to give due course
to the Motion for E amination.
Petitioners also point out that the Court of Appeals should have
dismissed Absolute s petition because of these procedural
in rmities:

1. Counsel for Absolute, not the proper of cers of Absolute,

led the Certi cation against Forum Shopping;
2. Absolute attached onl a duplicate original cop of the
challenged order of the trial court to the petition submitted
. a. . / a / /000001794678 bb3 9159857003600 b002 009 / /? =Fa 6/12
5/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 413

to the Court of Appeals; and

3. No proper proof of service accompanied the petition
15
submitted to the Court of Appeals.

The Ruling of the Court

The petition has no merit.

14 R , . 30.
15 Ibid., . 15-16.

553

. 413, C B 16, 2003 553

Ch a . Ab ol e Managemen Co o a ion

Whether the Court of Appeals correctl ordered the Trial Court to

give due course to Absolute s Motion for Examination

Section 6, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 6. P ceeding hen e c ncealed, embe led, f a d len l

c n e ed.—If an executor or administrator, heir, legatee, creditor, or other
individual interested in the estate of the deceased, complains to the court
having jurisdiction of the estate that a person is suspected of having
concealed, embezzled, or conveyed away any of the money, goods, or
chattels of the deceased, or that such person has in his possession or has
knowledge of any deed, conveyance, bond, contract, or other writing which
contains evidence of or tends to disclose the right, title, interest, or claim of
the deceased, the court may cite such suspected person to appear before it
and may examine him on oath on the matter of such complaint; and if the
person so cited refuses to appear, or to answer on such examination or such
interrogatories as are put to him, the court may punish him for contempt,
and may commit him to prison until he submits to the order of the court.
The interrogatories put to any such person, and his answers thereto, shall be
in writing and shall be led in the clerk s of ce.

Section 6 of Rule 87 seeks to secure evidence from persons

suspected of having possession or kno ledge of the properties left
b a deceased person, or of having concealed, 16
embe led or
conve ed an of the properties of the deceased.
The court hich acquires jurisdiction over the properties of a
deceased person through the ling of the corresponding proceedings
has supervision and control over these properties. The trial court has
. a. . / a / /000001794678 bb3 9159857003600 b002 009 / /? =Fa 7/12
5/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 413

the inherent dut to see to it that the inventor of the administrator

lists all the properties, rights and credits hich the la requires the
administrator to include in his inventor . In compliance ith this
dut , the court also has the inherent po er to determine hat
properties, rights and credits of the deceased the administrator
should include or e clude in the inventor . An heir or person
interested in the properties of a deceased ma call the court s
attention that certain properties, rights or credits are left out from the
inventor . In such a case, it is like ise the court s dut to hear the
observations of such part . The court has the

16 Modes o . Modes o, e al., 105 P . 1067 (1959). Valera . Inser o,

N . L-56504, 7 M 1987, 149 CRA 533.

554

554 C A A
Ch a . Ab ol e Managemen Co o a ion

po er to determine if such observations deserve attention and if

1
such properties belong a fac e to the estate.
Ho ever, in such proceedings the trial court has no authorit to
decide hether the properties, real or personal, belong to the estate
or to the persons e amined. If after such e amination there is good
reason to believe that the person e amined is keeping properties
belonging to the estate, then the administrator
1
should le an ordinar
action in court to recover the same. Inclusion of certain shares of
stock b the administrator in the inventor does not automaticall
deprive the assignees of their shares. The have a right to be heard
on the question of o nership, hen that propert is properl
1
presented to the court.
In the present case, some of the transferees of the shares of stock
do not appear to be heirs of the decedent.20
Neither do the appear to
be parties to the intestate proceedings. Third persons to hom the
decedent s assets had been conve ed ma be cited to appear in court
and e amined under oath as to ho the came into possession of the
decedent s assets. In case of fraudulent21conve ances, a separate
action is necessar to recover these assets.
Taken in this light, there is no reason h the trial court should
disallo the e amination of the alleged transferees of the shares of
stocks. This is onl for purposes of eliciting information or securing
evidence from persons suspected of concealing or conve ing some
of the decedent s properties to the prejudice of creditors. Petitioners
admission that these persons are the decedent s assignees does not
automaticall negate concealment of the decedent s assets on their
part. The assignment might be simulated so as to place the shares
. a. . / a / /000001794678 bb3 9159857003600 b002 009 / /? =Fa 8/12
5/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 413

be ond the reach of creditors. In case the shares are eventuall

included in the estate, this inventor is merel provisional and is not
determinative of the issue of o nership. A separate action is

1 Garcia . Garcia, 67 P . 353 (1939). Bolisa . Alcid, N . L-45494,

31 A 1978, 85 CRA 213.
1 Modes o . Modes o, e al., s pra 16.
1 Alafri . Mina, 28 P . 137 (1914).
20 CA R , . 18-21. A C
B C. C ,R C. , J C. .
21 Sebial . Sebial, N . L-23419, 27 J 1975, 64 CRA 385.

555

. 413, C B 16, 2003 555

Ch a . Ab ol e Managemen Co o a ion

necessar 22for determination of o nership and recover of

possession.

Whether the Petition submitted to the Court of Appeals suffered

from procedural in rmities which merit its dismissal

The petition led before the Court of Appeals contained a certi cate
of non-forum shopping e ecuted b counsel and not b the
authori ed of cer of Absolute. Ho ever, the subsequent ling of an
af davit of non-forum shopping signed b the corporate director
cured this defect. In Ma 23
ca M g C . . Na a Lab
Re a C , the Court held that a slight dela in the
ling of an af davit of non-forum shopping should not defeat the
action. A liberal interpretation of the rules is more in keeping ith
the objective to secure a just, speed and ine pensive disposition of
ever action and proceeding. As held in L a . C f
24
A ea , substantial compliance is suf cient. While submission of
the certi cate of non-forum shopping is mandator , nonetheless e
must not interpret the requirement too literall to defeat the 25
objective of preventing the undesirable practice of forum shopping.
Technical rules of procedure should be used to promote, not
frustrate, justice. While the s ift unclogging of court dockets is a
laudable objective, 26
the granting of substantial justice is an even
more urgent ideal.
Petitioners claim that the attachment of a mere duplicate original
cop of the assailed order violates the e press mandate of Section 1,
Rule 65, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule states that
the petition shall be accompanied b a certi ed true cop of the
judgment, order, or resolution subject thereof. Ho ever, under
. a. . / a / /000001794678 bb3 9159857003600 b002 009 / /? =Fa 9/12
5/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 413

Section 3, Rule 46 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended

b Circular No. 39-98, either a certi ed true cop or a d ca e
g a c ma be attached to the petition.

22 Valera . Inser o, s pra 16.

23 358 P . 864; 298 CRA 378 (1998).
24 315 P . 529; 245 CRA 477 (1995).
25 Bernardo . Na ional Labor Rela ions Commission, 325 P . 371; 255 CRA
108 (1996).
26 Shipside Incorpora ed . Co r of Appeals, G.R. N . 143377, 20 F 2001,
352 CRA 334.

556

556 C A A
Ch a . Ab ol e Managemen Co o a ion

The af davit of service e ecuted b petitioners counsel stating that

he served a cop of the petition b registered mail to respondents
ith the corresponding registr receipts constitutes suf cient proof
2
of service. This complies ith Section 13, Rule 13 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Lastl2 , petitioners quote A cega a d M a da . Pec a d
A cega to question the propriet of ling a petition for certiorari
before the Court of Appeals:

Without deciding whether the proceeding thus conducted complies with the
provision of Section 6 of Rule 88 [Section 6, Rule 87 under the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure], which says that the court may cite such suspected
person to appear before it and may examine him on oath on the matter of
such complaint, and without deciding whether the duty of the judge to
make the examination is or not mandatory, we are satis ed that ce i a i i
n an a ia e emed nde he af eci ed le. (Emphasis supplied)

The facts in A cega are not on all fours ith the facts in the instant
case. In A cega, the judge granted the e amination but onl ith
respect to three of the several lots involved. In the present case, there
as an absolute refusal b the trial court to conduct an e amination
on the ground that it ould constitute a shing e pedition of
evidence that could be used against the administratri . In A cega, the
trial court issued an order in favor of the person suspected of having
concealed properties of the estate and aga the special
administratri and the judicial receiver. The special administratri
had the remed of ling another case to recover such properties in
2
the name of the estate.

. a. . / a / /000001794678 bb3 9159857003600 b002 009 / /? =Fa 10/12

5/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 413

In the present case, Absolute as a creditor of the decedent led

the petition after the trial court denied its Motion for e amination.
Absolute questioned the ruling fa of the administratri and
heirs of the decedent. Although as a creditor, Absolute does
30
have the
remed of ling another case to recover such properties, its

2 R , . 29-30.
2 78 P . 743 (1947).
2 Modes o . Modes o, e al., s pr 16.
30 10, R 87 :

SEC. 10. When c edi o ma b ing ac ion. Lien fo co . W e ee c a de c e c f

a e ,a d e decea ed fe e ad ade a e ed c ac e a ce, a a ed
e

557

. 413, C B 16, 2003 557

Ch a . Ab ol e Managemen Co o a ion

Motion for e amination as intended merel to investigate

31
and take
testimon in preparation for an independent action. Aside from the
administratri and the heirs of the decedent, Absolute also sought to
e amine the supposed assignees of the decedent s shares, ho are
third persons ith respect to the probate proceedings. The Motion
as a preparator move sanctioned b the Rules of Court. The
denial of Absolute s Motion as an interlocutor order not subject
to appeal. The order of denial ma , ho ever, be challenged before a
superior court through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
WHEREFORE, e DENY the petition for lack of merit. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57421 dated 9
Ma 2000 as ell as the Resolution dated 5 September 2000
den ing the motion for reconsideration is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Da de, J . (C.J., Cha a ), V g and A c a, JJ., concur.

Y a e -Sa ag , J., On Of cial Leave.

Pe de ed, dg e a d e af ed.

Note. The court in charge of the intestate proceedings cannot

adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to belong to out-

,
, ,

. a. . / a / /000001794678 bb3 9159857003600 b002 009 / /? =Fa 11/12

5/7/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 413

, ,
,
. B

, ,

.
.

,
,
, .
31 Mallari . Mallari, 92 P . 694 (1952). See O CAR M. HERRERA, 3-A
REMEDIAL LAW 141 (1996).

55

558 C A A
Peo le . Pe i o

side parties. (O a e -E de e .C f A ea , 321 SCRA 178

[1999])

o0o

C g 2021 Ce a B S , I c. A g e e ed.

. a. . / a / /000001794678 bb3 9159857003600 b002 009 / /? =Fa 12/12