Chua vs. Absolute Management

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 144881. October 16, 2003.]
BETTY T. CHUA, JENNIFER T. CHUA-LOCSIN, BENISON T. CHUA, and

BALDWIN T. CHUA, Petitioners, v. ABSOLUTE MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION and COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is a petition for review on certiorari 1 to annul the Decision 2 dated 9 May
2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 57421, as well as the Resolution
dated 5 September 2000 denying the motion for reconsideration. The Court of
Appeals set aside the Order 3 dated 7 February 2000 issued by Branch 112 of the
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City which denied the petitioners’ "Motion for the
Examination of the Administratrix and Others" ("Motion").chanrob1es virtua1 1aw
1ibrary
Antecedent Facts
The facts are not in dispute. As found by the Court of Appeals, the essential
antecedents are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Sometime in 1999, upon a petition for letters of administration filed 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], . . . 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, filed 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 [sic] 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 filed 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
constituted proofs of transfer. Judge Dumatol accepted the explanation as
meritorious.cralaw : red
Absolute Management Corporation, suspecting that the documents attached to
Betty T. Chua’s reply were spurious and simulated, filed a motion for the
examination of the supposed transferees. . . . It premised its motion on Section 6,
Rule 87, Revised Rules of Court, infra, 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 file 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 Dumatol issued the assailed order. 4
The Ruling of the Trial Court
The trial court’s order denying Absolute Management Corporation’s ("Absolute")

Motion reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
This resolves the undated Motion for the Examination of the Administratrix and
Others, filed on January 11, 2000 by claimant Absolute Management Corporation,
to which petitioners, through counsel filed their opposition, and claimant Absolute
Management Corporation in turn filed its reply.
Finding no merit in the motion filed by claimant Absolute Management

Corporation, as it in effect seeks to engage in a fishing 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 [sic] not allow the
fishing of evidence to use [sic] against the adverse party, claimant Absolute
Management Corporation’s motion is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED. 5
Aggrieved, Absolute filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of
Appeals.
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 abuse of discretion in denying its
Motion and in failing to act on its claim. Absolute alleged that the trial court
deprived it of the right to show that the documents presented by petitioners were
fictitious to the prejudice of Absolute.
During the hearing 6 conducted on 9 August 2000 before the members of the
Special Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals, counsel for Absolute presented the
following evidence to support its assertion that the transfers of the shares were
spurious:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. Exhibit "A" 7 — Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City that Atty. Hilarion A.D. Maagad (the notary
public who notarized the questioned Secretary’s Certificate 8 and Deeds of
Assignment of Shares of Stock 9) is not listed in the Roll of Notaries Public for the
City of Pasay particularly for the period of 1993-1994, 1994-1995, 1998-1999 and
1999-2000.
2. Exhibit "B" 10 — Certification from the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial
Court of Makati City that the questioned Secretary’s Certificate 11 was not
included in the Notarial Report of Atty. Lope M. Velasco for the years 1998-1999.
3. Exhibits "B-1," "B-2," and "B-3" 12 — Certification from the Clerk of Court of
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City that the questioned Deeds of Assignment
of Shares of Stock 13 were not included in the Notarial Report of Atty. Lope M.
Velasco for the years 1998-1999.
In setting aside the trial court’s order, the Court of Appeals pointed out that the
presentation of the deeds of assignment executed by the decedent in petitioners’
favor does not automatically negate the existence of concealment. The appellate
court stated that it is a common occurrence in estate proceedings for heirs to
execute simulated deeds of transfer which conceal and place properties of the
decedent beyond the reach of creditors.
The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals reads:chanrob1es

virtual 1aw library
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.

Chua vs. Absolute Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chua vs. Absolute Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chua vs. Absolute Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 144881. October 16, 2003.]

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

Sometime in 1999, upon a petition for letters of administration filed by [herein

One of the creditors of the deceased, [herein respondent] Absolute Management

In the interim, Absolute Management Corporation noticed that the deceased’s

The Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court’s order denying Absolute Management Corporation’s ("Absolute")

Finding no merit in the motion filed by claimant Absolute Management

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals reads:chanrob1es

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The order dated February 7, 2000 of

You might also like