728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Santero vs. CFI of Cavite

*
Nos. L-61700-03. September 14, 1987.

PRINCESITA SANTERO, FEDERICO SANTERO and WILLIE SANTERO,

petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE, ANSELMA
DIAZ, VICTOR, RODRIGO, ANSELMINA, MIGUEL, all surnamed SANTERO,
and REYNALDO EVARISTO, in his capacity as Administrator of the Intestate
Estate of PABLO SANTERO, respondents.

Civil Law;  Family Relations;  Support;  Fact that private respondents are of age,
gainfully employed, or married is not a determining factor of their right to allowance
under Art 188 of the Civil Code; While the Rules of Court limit allowances to the widow
and minor or incapacitated children of the deceased, the Civil Code gives the surviving
spouse and his or her children without distinction.—The fact that private respondents
are of age, gainfully employed, or married is of no moment and should not be regarded
as the determining factor of their right to allowance under Art. 188. While the Rules of
Court limit allowances to the widow and minor or incapacitated children of the
deceased, the New Civil Code gives the surviving spouse and his/her children without
distinction. Hence, the private respondents Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina and Miguel all
surnamed Santero are entitled to allowances as advances from their shares in the
inheritance from their father Pablo Santero.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Since the provision of the Civil Code, a substantive law,
gives the surviving spouse and the children the right to receive support during the
liquidation of the estate of the deceased, such right cannot be impaired by Sec. 3 of Rule
83 of the Rules of Court which is a procedural rule; "Spouse" interpreted to be the
legitimate spouse, not common-law spouse.—Since the provision of the Civil Code, a
substantive law, gives the surviving spouse and to the children the right to receive
support during the liquidation of the estate of the deceased, such right cannot be
impaired by Rule 83 Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court which is a procedural rule. Be it noted
however that with respect to "spouse," the same must be the "legitimate spouse" (not
common-law spouses who are the mothers of the children here).

________________

* SECOND DIVISION.

729

VOL. 153, SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 729

Santero vs. CFI of Cavite

 Same;  Same;  Same;  Motion for allowance granted by court after hearing, as the
motion contains a notice of hearing and was opposed by the petitioner's lawyer; In
granting the motion for allowance, the court merely followed the precedent of the court
which granted a similar motion the previous year.—lt is not true that the Motion for
Allowance was granted by respondent Court without hearing. The record shows that the
"Motion for Allowance" dated June 30, 1982 contains a Notice of Hearing (p. 2, Annex
"A") addressed to the lawyers for the petitioners and setting the hearing thereof on July
8, 1982 at 9:00 in the morning. Apparently a copy of said motion was duly received by
the lawyer, Atty. Beltran as he filed an opposition thereto on the same date of hearing of
the motion. Furthermore even the instant petition admits that the wards, (petitioners
and private respondents as represented by their respective guardians) "have been
granted allowances for school expenses for about 8 years now." The respondent court in
granting the motion for allowance merely "followed  the precedent  of the court which
granted a similarmotion last year." (Annex "F") However in previous years (1979-1981)
the "wards" {petitioners and private respondents) only received P1,500.00 each
depending upon the availability of funds as granted by the court in several orders.
(Annex 1 to Annex 4).

PETITION for certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of First Instance
of Cavite, Br. V.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

PARAS, J.:

This is a Petition for Certiorari which questions the order of the respondent
court granting the Motion for Allowance filed by private respondents. Said
order reads as follows:

"Acting on the Motion For Allowance dated June 30, 1982 filed by Victor, Rodrigo,
Anselmina and Miguel, all surnamed Santero, thru their guardian, Anselma Diaz, the
Opposition thereto dated July 8,1982 filed by the oppositors, the Reply to Opposition
dated July 12,1982 filed by movant Anselma Diaz and the Rejoinder dated July 26, 1982
filed by the oppositors, the Court was constrained to examine the Motion For Allowance
filed by the herein movant last year wherein the ground cited was for support which
included educational expenses, clothing and medical necessities, which was granted and
said minors were given an allowance prayed for in their motion.

730

730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Santero vs. CFI of Cavite

"In the Motion For Allowance in question guardian-movant Anselma Diaz only
followed the precedent of the Court which granted a similar motion last year to be spent
for the school expenses of her wards. In their opposition the oppositors contend that the
wards for whom allowance is sought are no longer schooling and have attained majority
age so that they are no longer under guardianship. They likewise allege that the
administrator does not have sufficient funds to cover the said allowance because
whatever funds are in the hands of the administrator, they constitute funds held in
trust for the benefit of whoever will be adjudged as owners of the Kawit property from
which said administrator derives the only income of the intestate estate of Pablo
Santero, et al.
 "In the Reply filed by the guardian-movant, she admitted some of her children are of
age and not enrolled for the f irst semester due to lack of funds but will be enrolled as
soon as they are given the requested allowances. She cited Article 290 of the Civil Code
providing that:

'Support is everything that is indispensable for substance, dwelling, clothing and medical
attendance, according to the social position of the family.
'Support also includes the education of the person entitled to be supported until he completes
his education or training for some trade or vocation, even beyond the age of majority.' citing also
Section 3 of Rule 83 of the Rules of Court which provides:
'Allowance to widow and family. The widow and minor or incapacitated children of a deceased
person, during the settlement of the estate, shall receive therefrom, under the direction of the
Court, such allowance as provided by law.'

From the foregoing discussion alone, the Court cannot deviate from its duty to give
the allowance sought by the wards, the fact that they need further education which
should have been provided to them if their deceased father were alive.
"On the allegation that the funds from which the allowance would be derived are
trust funds, the Court, time and again had emphasized that the estate of the Santeros is
quite big and the amount to be released for allowances is indeed insignificant and which
can easily be replaced from its general fund if the so-called trust fund is adjudicated to
the oppositors.
"WHEREFORE, Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina and Miguel, all surnamed Santero are
hereby granted an allowance of two thousand (P2,000.00) pesos each for tuition fees,
clothing materials and sub-

731

VOL. 153, SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 731

Santero vs. CFI of Cavite

sistence out of any available funds in the hands of the administrator who is ordered to
reimburse to them the said amount after this order shall have become final to enable
the oppositors to file their appeal by certiorari if they so desire within the reglementary
period.
"SO ORDERED."
Bacoor, Cavite, July 28,1982.
ILDEFONSO M. BLEZA 
Executive Judge"     
(pp. 35-36, Rollo)

It appears from the records that petitioners Princesita Santero-Morales,

Federico Santero and Willy Santero are the children begotten by the late Pablo
Santero with Felixberta Pacursa while private respondents Victor, Rodrigo,
Anselmina and Miguel all surnamed Santero are four of the seven children
begotten by the same Pablo Santero with Anselma Diaz. Both sets of children
are the natural children of the late Pablo Santero since neither of their
mothers, was married to their father Pablo. Pablo Santero in turn, who died on
November 30, 1973 was the only legitimate son of Pascual Santero who died in
1970 and Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero who died in 1976.
Meanwhile before We could act on the instant petition private respondents
filed another Motion for Allowance dated March 25, 1985 with the respondent
court to include Juanita, Estelita and Pedrito all surnamed Santero as children
of the late Pablo Santero with Anselma Diaz praying that an order be granted
directing the administrator Reynaldo C. Evaristo, to deliver the sum of
P6,000.00 to each of the seven (7) children of Anselma Diaz as their allowance
from the estate of Pablo Santero. The respondent Court granted the motion of
the private respondents but oppositors (petitioners herein) asked the court to
reconsider said Order.
On September 10, 1985, an Amended Order was issued by respondent Court
directing Anselma Diaz to submit her clarification or explanation as to the
additional three (3) children of Anselma Diaz included in the motion. In
compliance therewith Anselma Diaz filed her "Clarification" stating among
others that in her previous motions, only the last four minor children as
represented by the mother,
732

732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Santero vs. CFI of Cavite

Anselma Diaz were included in the motion for support and her first three (3)
children who 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 under Art. 188, of the New Civil Code.
On October 15, 1985, petitioners herein filed their Motion
to Admit Supplemental Petition opposing the inclusion of three (3) more heirs.
We denied that "Motion for Extension of Time to file their Supplemental
Petition" as per Our Resolution dated October 23, 1985.
On November 11, 1985, another Order was issued by the respondent court
directing the administrator of the estate to get back the allowance of the three
additional recipients or children of Anselma Diaz apparently based on the
oppositors' (petitioners herein) "Urgent Motion to Direct the Administrator to
Withhold Disbursement of Allowance to the Movants."
The issues now being raised in this present Petition are:

1. Whether or not respondent court acted with abuse of discretion

amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting the allowance to the
respondents Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina and Miguel—P2,000.00 each
despite the fact that all of them are not minors and all are gainfully
employed with the exception of Miguel.
2. Whether or not respondent Court acted with abuse of discretion in
granting the allowance based on the allegations of the said respondents
that the abovenamed wards are still schooling and they are in actual
need of money to defray their school expenses for 1982-83 when the
truth is that they are no longer schooling.
3. Whether or not respondent Court acted with abuse of discretion in
granting the motion for allowance without conducting a hearing
thereon, to determine the truth of allegations of the private
respondents.

Petitioners argue that private respondents are not entitled to any allowance
since they have already attained majority
733
 VOL. 153, SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 733
Santero vs. CFI of Cavite

age, two are gainfully employed and one is married as provided for under Sec. 3
Rule 83, of the Rules of Court. Petitioners also allege that there was
misrepresentation on the part of the guardian in asking for allowance for
tuition fees, books and other school materials and other miscellaneous expenses
for school term 1982-83 because these wards have already attained majority
age so that they are no longer under guardianship. They further allege that the
administrator of the estate of Pablo Santero does not have sufficient funds to
cover said allowance because whatever funds are in the hands of the
administrator constitute funds held in trust for the benefit of whoever will be
adjudged as owners of the Kawit properties from where these funds now held
by the administrator are derived.
In this connection, the question of whether the private respondents are
entitled to allowance or not concerns only the intestate estate of the late Pablo
Santero and not the intestate estates of Pascual Santero and Simona Pamuti,
parents of their late legitimate son Pablo Santero. The reason for this is Art.
992 of the New Civil Code which states that "An illegitimate child has no right
to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and relatives of his father or
mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from
the illegitimate child." The question of whether or not the petitioners and
private respondents are entitled to inherit by right of representation from their
grandparents more particularly from Simona Pamuti was settled by Us in the
related case of "Anselma Diaz, et al. vs. Felisa Pamuti-Jardin" (G.R. No. 66574-
R) wherein We held that in view of the barrier present in said Art. 992,
petitioners and private respondents are excluded from the intestate estate of
Simona Pamuti Vda. de Santero.
The present petition obviously lacks merit.
The controlling provision of law is not Rule 83, Sec. 3 of the New Rules of
Court but Arts. 290 and 188 of the Civil Code reading as f ollows:
"Art. 290. Support is everything that is indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing
and medical attendance, according to

734

734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Santero vs. CFI of Cavite

the social position of the family.

Support also includes the education of the person entitled to be supported until he
completes his education or training for some profession, trade or vocation, even beyond
the age of majority."
"Art. 188. From the common mass of property support shall be given to the surviving
spouse and to the children during the liquidation of the inventoried property and until
what belongs to them is delivered; but from this shall be deducted that amount received
for support which exceeds the fruits or rents pertaining to them."
The fact that private respondents are of age, gainfully employed, or married is
of no moment and should not be regarded as the determining factor of their
right to allowance under Art. 188. While the Rules of Court limit allowances to
the widow and minor or incapacitated children of the deceased, the New Civil
Code gives the surviving spouse and his/her children without distinction.
Hence, the private respondents Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina and Miguel all
surnamed Santero are entitled to allowances as advances from their shares in
the inheritance from their father Pablo Santero. Since the provision of the Civil
Code, a substantive law, gives the surviving spouse and to the children the
right to receive support during the liquidation of the estate of the deceased,
such right cannot be impaired by Rule 83 Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court which is a
procedural rule. Be it noted however that with respect to "spouse," the same
must be the "legitimate spouse" (not common-law spouses who are the mothers
of the children here).
It is not true that the Motion for Allowance was granted by respondent
Court without hearing. The record shows that the "Motion for Allowance" dated
June 30, 1982 contains a Notice of Hearing (p. 2, Annex "A") addressed to the
lawyers for the petitioners and setting the hearing thereof on July 8, 1982 at
9:00 in the morning. Apparently a copy of said motion was duly received by the
lawyer, Atty. Beltran as he filed an opposition thereto on the same date of
hearing of the motion. Furthermore even the instant petition admits that the
wards, (petitioners and private respondents as represented by their respective
guardians) "have been granted allowances for school expenses for about 8 years
now." The respondent court in granting the motion for allowance merely
"followed the
735

VOL. 153, SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 735

People vs. Abarca

precedent  of the court which granted a  similar  motion  last year." (Annex "F")
However in previous years (1979-1981) the "wards" (petitioners -and private
respondents) only received P 1,500.00 each depending upon the availability of
funds as granted by the court in several orders. (Annex 1 to Annex 4).
WHEREFORE, in the light of the aforementioned circumstances, the instant
Petition is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed judgment is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

     Yap (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.
          Padilla, J.,  no part; senior partner of private respondents' counsel is
related to me.

Petition dismissed and the judgment affirmed.

Notes.—Enforcement of the writ of execution of judgment for support by

motion despite lapse of the five-year period is allowed. Jurisdiction of the Court
to enforce judgment is never lost. (Canonizada vs. Benitez, 127 SCRA 610.)
Obligation to give or the right to ask for support does not cease permanently.
Right to support subsists throughout the period that the marriage subsist.
 (Canonizado vs. Benitez, 127 SCRA 610.)
Spurious or illegitimate children have no successional rights. They enjoy
only the right to support. (Dimayuga vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 110)

——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All