Disputable right

This is a case involving the estate of spouses Carding and Nita and one of their sons, David. The question that arose here is whether the alleged widow of their son David can intervene in the estate proceedings of David’s parents, aside from the estate proceedings of David.

Carding and Nita had six children, among whom was David, the youngest. The first to die in the family was Nita, their mother, leaving a last will and testament. She is survived by her ex-husband Carding and the six children.

Four years after Nita’s death, David the youngest child also died even ahead of his father Carding. At the time of David’s death, his marriage to Emma had already been annulled and he was already living with another woman, Carla.

Then after seven years, it was David’s father who died, leaving behind his remaining five children with Nita as well as his four grandchildren from his son David.

A Petition for the probate of the wills of Carding and Nita was thereafter filed by Naty and Mila, the other children of Carding and Nita. Later on David’s children also joined the Petition as Intervenors. Subsequently the Regional Trial Court (RTC) admitted the wills to probate and appointed David’s son, Danny, as the Administrator of their estate.

Then Carla, the living partner of David, filed a Motion for Intervention in said proceedings, alleging that she has a legal interest in the estate of David’s parents, because she is the surviving spouse of David, having married him about a year before the latter died. She claimed that her late husband David, being one of the children of Carding and Nita, is entitled to 1/7 of the estate of David’s late mother Nita and, as the surviving spouse, she is also entitled to that portion belonging to David, which is equivalent to the legitime of the legitimate children of David pursuant to Article 887 of the Civil Code.

This was opposed by Danny and the children of Carding and Nita, who argued that Carla has no legal interest in the probate of the wills of Nita and Carding. And she could not also represent David because she was not the legal wife of David since she was still married to another man when she married David.

Afterwards, Carla also filed a Motion for Intervention in the proceedings for the settlement of David’s estate, which was initiated by one of David’s daughters before another RTC. This motion was granted by said RTC. But, the RTC for the settlement of the estate of Nita and Carding denied Carla’s motion to intervene therein.

And despite Carla’s motion for reconsideration, the RTC still did not allow Carla to intervene in the estate proceedings of David’s parents. So Carla questioned this resolution denying her motion to intervene before the Court of Appeals (CA), and the CA ruled in her favor.

According to the CA, Carla should be allowed to intervene because she is the widow of David and has an interest in her husband’s share in the estate of his deceased mother Nita which is yet to be determined. The CA clarified that Carla’s interest is not anchored on her status as daughter-in-law but as heir of David. Was the CA correct?

The Supreme Court said no. In the first place, the SC ruled that Carla’s rights and interests, if any, can be fully protected in the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of David in the other RTC. It is in that proceeding where she can directly litigate her claims as the alleged wife and heir of David. Thus her intervention in the probate proceedings of the wills of Nita and Carding pending before another RTC is completely unnecessary and superfluous.

Furthermore, Carla could not inherit from the estate of David’s father Carding, because David died ahead of him. Only the children of David would succeed by right of representation from their grandfather Carding pursuant to Article 972 of the Civil Code which provides in part: “The right of representation takes place in the direct descending line but never in the ascending line.” Moreover, Carla is not related by blood, but only by affinity, to Carding.

In the second place, it should be noted that Carla’s right as surviving spouse of David is disputed. The validity of her marriage to David is in issue. Danny, the son of David who opposed Carla’s motion for intervention in the estate of his father, questioned the validity of the marriage of Carla to his father on the ground that it is bigamous because Carla’s existing marriage to another man had not yet been nullified before her marriage to David, as shown by the marriage certificate of Carla with such other man, at a civil wedding in a Municipal Trial Court of another city.

The decision of the CA and its resolution denying the motion for reconsideration of Danny is therefore reversed and set aside. Carla’s Motion for Intervention and claim in intervention in the probate of the wills of Carding and Nita pending before another RTC is denied. This is the ruling in the case of Tirol vs. Nolasco, G.R. 230103, Aug. 27, 2020.