G.R. No. L-6297 August 26, 1954
In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of RAFAEL LITAM. GREGORIO DY TAM, petitioner-appellant, vs. REMEDIOS ESPIRITU, in substitution of MARCOSA RIVERA, counter-petitioner-appellee.

FACTS

Rafael Litam (also known as Dy Tam) died on January 10, 1951, a resident of Hulong Duhat, Malabon, Rizal. He was married to Marcosa Rivera on June 10, 1922, before a justice of the peace, at which time he professed to be single. Gregorio Dy Tam filed a petition for the settlement of the estate, alleging that he and others were the children of the deceased by a prior Chinese wife, Sia Khin, whom Rafael married in China in 1911 and who was now deceased. Gregorio claimed the marriage to Marcosa was contracted while the prior marriage was subsisting. In his petition, Gregorio prayed that Marcosa Rivera be appointed administratrix. Marcosa Rivera filed a reply and counter-petition, denying knowledge of the prior marriage and the alleged children, claiming that properties listed in the petition were her own, and asserting that the deceased instead owed her a debt. She alleged the deceased left properties in Casiguran, Sorsogon, and claimed a one-half conjugal share. She proposed her nephew, Arminio Rivera, as administrator. Gregorio opposed this proposal, arguing Arminio represented an adverse interest, Marcosa was senile and thus disqualified from proposing, and her marriage’s validity was doubtful, depriving her of preference under the rules. He suggested a banking institution be appointed. At the hearing, petitioner Gregorio Dy Tam did not introduce evidence to prove the alleged prior marriage in China or the existence of the alleged children. The trial court, after finding Arminio Rivera qualified, appointed him administrator.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in appointing Arminio Rivera, the nominee of Marcosa Rivera, as administrator of the intestate estate of Rafael Litam.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appointment. The trial court had the duty to presume the validity of the intestate’s marriage to Marcosa Rivera, as no evidence of the alleged prior marriage to Sia Khin was submitted or offered. The contention that Arminio Rivera was hostile to the interests of the estate was predicated on the existence of the unproven prior marriage and the claim that the petitioner and others were children and heirs. Since these claims were not proved, the court could not assume the marriage to Marcosa was void. The petitioner and his siblings were, for the present, mere claimants, and the administrator’s duty would be to protect the estate against these pretended heirs; thus, he could not be considered hostile to the estate’s interests. The claim that Marcosa Rivera waived her right by not filing a petition within thirty days was without merit, as the petitioner himself had initially asked for her appointment. The appointment was justified by the circumstances.