Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Suntay III Vs Cojuangco

    Uploaded by

    Mharey
    Emilio Suntay III petitioned to share in the distribution of his adoptive grandfather Federico Suntay's estate. Federico adopted Emilio III and his sister Nenita after the death of Federico's wife Cristina. Cristina died intestate survived by her husband Federico and grandchildren, including respondent Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay. The court ruled that as Federico's legally adopted son, Emilio III is entitled to share directly in Federico's estate as a direct heir, not just representing his deceased biological father Emilio I.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Suntay III Vs Cojuangco

    Uploaded by

    Mharey
    1K views1 page
    Emilio Suntay III petitioned to share in the distribution of his adoptive grandfather Federico Suntay's estate. Federico adopted Emilio III and his sister Nenita after the death of Federico's wife Cristina. Cristina died intestate survived by her husband Federico and grandchildren, including respondent Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay. The court ruled that as Federico's legally adopted son, Emilio III is entitled to share directly in Federico's estate as a direct heir, not just representing his deceased biological father Emilio I.

    Original Description:

    Wills and Succession - PROVISIONS COMMON TO TESTATE AND INTESTATE SUCCESSION

    Original Title

    Suntay III vs Cojuangco

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Emilio Suntay III petitioned to share in the distribution of his adoptive grandfather Federico Suntay's estate. Federico adopted Emilio III and his sister Nenita after the death of Federico's wife Cristina. Cristina died intestate survived by her husband Federico and grandchildren, including respondent Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay. The court ruled that as Federico's legally adopted son, Emilio III is entitled to share directly in Federico's estate as a direct heir, not just representing his deceased biological father Emilio I.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    Suntay III Vs Cojuangco

    Uploaded by

    Mharey
    Emilio Suntay III petitioned to share in the distribution of his adoptive grandfather Federico Suntay's estate. Federico adopted Emilio III and his sister Nenita after the death of Federico's wife Cristina. Cristina died intestate survived by her husband Federico and grandchildren, including respondent Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay. The court ruled that as Federico's legally adopted son, Emilio III is entitled to share directly in Federico's estate as a direct heir, not just representing his deceased biological father Emilio I.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Suntay III vs Cojuangco-Suntay

    FACTS: The decedent, Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay (Cristina), married to Dr. Federico Suntay (Federico), died intestate. In 1979, their only son,
    Emilio Aguinaldo Suntay (Emilio I), predeceased both Cristina and Federico. At the time of her death, Cristina was survived by her husband,
    Federico, and several grandchildren, including herein petitioner Emilio A.M. Suntay III (Emilio III) and respondent Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay.
     
    During his lifetime, Emilio I was married to Isabel Cojuangco, and they begot three children, namely: herein respondent, Isabel; Margarita; and
    Emilio II, all surnamed Cojuangco-Suntay. Emilio I’s marriage to Isabel Cojuangco was subsequently annulled. Thereafter, Emilio I had two
    children out of wedlock, Emilio III and Nenita Suntay Tañedo (Nenita), by two different women, Concepcion Mendoza and Isabel Santos,
    respectively.
     
    Despite the illegitimate status of Emilio III, he was reared ever since he was a mere baby, nine months old, by the spouses Federico and Cristina
    and was an acknowledged natural child of Emilio I. Nenita is an acknowledged natural child of Emilio I and was likewise brought up by the
    spouses Federico and Cristina.
     
    As previously adverted to, the marriage between Emilio I and Isabel was annulled. Consequently, respondent and her siblings Margarita and
    Emilio II, lived with their mother on Balete Drive, Quezon City, separately from their father and paternal grandparents.
     
    Parenthetically, after the death of Emilio I, Federico filed a petition for visitation rights over his grandchildren. Significantly, Federico, after the
    death of his spouse, Cristina, or on September 27, 1993, adopted their illegitimate grandchildren, Emilio III and Nenita.

    After a failed attempt by the parties to settle proceedings amicably, Federico filed a Manifestation nominating his adopted son, Emilio III, as
    administrator of the decedent’s estate on his behalf, in the event he would be adjudged as the one with a better right to the letters of
    administration.

    Issue: Whether Emilio III, a legally adopted child of Federico, is entitled to share in the distribution of the latter’s estate as a direct heir, one
    degree from Federico, not simply representing his deceased illegitimate father, Emilio I.
     
    RULING: YES. From the foregoing, it is patently clear that the CA erred in excluding Emilio III from the administration of the decedent’s estate.
    As Federico’s adopted son, Emilio III’s interest in the estate of Cristina is as much apparent to this Court as the interest therein of respondent,
    considering that the CA even declared that “under the law, [Federico], being the surviving spouse, would have the right of succession over a
    portion of the exclusive property of the decedent, aside from his share in the conjugal partnership.” Thus, we are puzzled why the CA resorted
    to a strained legal reasoning – Emilio III’s nomination was subject to a suspensive condition and rendered inoperative by reason of Federico’s
    death – wholly inapplicable to the case at bar.

    You might also like