GR 144881; (October, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 144881; October 16, 2003
BETTY T. CHUA, JENNIFER T. CHUA-LOCSIN, BENISON T. CHUA, and BALDWIN T. CHUA, petitioners vs. ABSOLUTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Betty T. Chua was appointed administratrix of the intestate estate of Jose L. Chua. Respondent Absolute Management Corporation, a creditor of the estate, filed a claim. It later discovered that shares of stock in certain corporations were not included in the estate inventory. The administratrix explained these shares had been assigned prior to the decedent’s death, submitting deeds of assignment as proof. Respondent, suspecting the deeds were spurious and simulated to conceal assets from creditors, filed a “Motion for the Examination of the Administratrix and Others” under Section 6, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court. The Regional Trial Court denied the motion, calling it a “fishing expedition” for evidence.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ordered the trial court to give due course to the Motion for Examination filed by the creditor.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The legal logic is anchored on the purpose and application of Section 6, Rule 87. This rule is a special procedural tool designed to uncover properties of the deceased that may have been concealed, embezzled, or conveyed away to defraud creditors. Its application is proper when there is a reasonable ground to suspect such concealment. Here, the creditor presented prima facie evidence casting doubt on the authenticity of the deeds of assignment, including certifications that the documents were not recorded in the notarial reports of the alleged notaries public. This provided a sufficient factual basis for the examination, moving the request beyond a mere fishing expedition. The trial court’s outright denial constituted a grave abuse of discretion, as it deprived the creditor of a lawful mechanism to prove its claim against the estate. The Court emphasized that the examination is a preliminary investigative step to ascertain facts, and allowing it is in line with the probate court’s duty to ensure the estate is properly administered for the benefit of all interested parties, including creditors.