MICHAEL C. GUY, petitioner v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS,HON. SIXTO MARELLA, JR., Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 138, Makati City and minors, KAREN DANES WEI and KAMILLE DANES WEI, represented by their mother, REMEDIOS OANES, respondents
502 SCRA 151
Facts:
On June 13, 1997, minors Karen Oanes Wei and Kamille Oanes Wei, represented by their mother Remedios Oanes Wei, filed a petition for letters of administration before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 138. In the petition, they alleged to be the duly acknowledged illegitimate children of Sima Wei, who died in Makati City on October 29, 1992. They also prayed for the appointment of a regular administrator for the orderly settlement of Sima Wei’s estate worth P10,000,000.00. Likewise, they prayed that Michael C. Guy, one of Wei’s known heirs on her spouse Shirley, be appointed as Special Administrator of the estate. A Certification Against Forum Shopping signed by their counsel, Atty. Sedfrey A. Ordonez was attached on their petition.
Guy filed his opposition praying for the dismissal of the petition because his father has no debts therefore no securing letters of administration is needed to settle his estate. He also argued that pursuant to Article 175 of the Family Code, Karen and Kamille should have established their illegitimate children status when Sima was still alive. A Joint Motion to Dismiss was also filed on the ground that Remedios should have signed the certification against forum shopping instead of their counsel as mandated by Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. Also, a Supplemental Motion to Dismiss was filed alleging that on June 7, 1993, Remedios was already paid as she signed a Release and Waiver Claim stating that in exchange for the financial and educational assistance, the Oanes Weis discharge the estate of Eima Wei from and all liabilities. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied both petitions. A petition for certiorari was filed before the Court of Appeals which affirmed the RTC’s decision. Hence, this case.
Issues:
1. Whether or not Remedios’ petition should be dismissed for failure to comply with the rules of certification of non forum shopping.
2. Whether or not the Release and Waiver of Claim prevents Oanes Wei from claiming their successional rights.
3. Whether or not the Oanes Wei are barred by prescription from proving their filiation.
Ruling:
Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court provides that the certification of non-forum shopping should be executed by the plaintiff or the principal party. Failure to comply with the requirement shall be cause the dismissal of the case. In the case at bar, the Supreme Court ruled that the merits of the case and the absence of an intention to violate the rules should be considered to temper the strict application of the rules.
On Remedios’ Release and Waiver of Claim, the Court did not find the same as a waiver of hereditary rights. There is no clarity on its purpose of execution. The document did not specifically mention anything about the hereditary share in the estate of Sima Wei. Moreover, if Remedios truly waived her daughters hereditary rights, such waiver will not bar the latter’s claim since a judicial approval is needed to repudiate such right of minors or incapacitated person.
The resolution on the issue of prescription depends on the type of evidence to be presented by the Oanes Wei in proving their filiation. However, the Supreme Court cannot determine the same since there has been no evidence being presented yet and this Court is not a trier of facts. It can only be resolved by full trial under the Regional Trial Court.
The petition lacks merit.
