Marilu, alleging that she is the daughter of Mariano C. Turla, filed a petition for issuance of letters of administration of the estate of Mariano, alleging that she is the sole heir of Mariano, whose wife, Rufina De Castro, predeceased him. The RTC granted the petition and issued letters of administration in favor of Marilu. Maria opposed the petition; claiming that she is the surviving youngest sister of Mariano, and alleged that Marilu is not the daughter of Mariano. Marilu, on the other hand, argued that her filiation to Mariano had been conclusively proven with the Certificate of Live Birth issued by the National Statistics Office where Mariano was listed as her father and the same signed by Mariano. Both parties filed pleadings in support of their positions. Marilu also filed a Motion to Order DNA Testing, which the RTC granted. The result of the laboratory testing, where DNA samples of Marilu were compared and analysed with the DNA samples of Rufina De Castro’s siblings, revealed that there is no possibility that Marilu is a blood relative of the De Castro’s, thus the RTC in an order, withdrew the appointment of Marilu as special administrator, and Maria’s nominated administrator, Norma Bernardino was appointed. Marilu moved to reconsider the order, but it was denied, thus, Marilu filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals to assail the RTC orders.
The CA reversed the RTC, hence Maria appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in reversing the RTC order which removed Marilu as special administrator due to the result of the DNA testing which showed her as not being blog relatives of Rufina, Mariano’s wife.
The Ruling:
We find no merit in the petition.
Settled is the rule that the selection or removal of special administrators is not governed by the rules regarding the selection or removal of regular administrators. Courts may appoint or remove special administrators based on grounds other than those enumerated in the Rules, at their discretion. As long as the said discretion is exercised without grave abuse, higher courts will not interfere with it. This, however, is no authority for the judge to become partial, or to make his personal likes and dislikes prevail over, or his passions to rule, his judgment. The exercise of such discretion must be based on reason, equity, justice and legal principles.
We agree with the CA when it found that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion in removing respondent as Special Administratrix of the estate of Mariano Turla on the basis of the DNA result showing that she is not maternally related to Rufina, Mariano’s wife.
Respondent had filed with the RTC a Petition for Letter of Administration in the matter of the intestate estate of the late Mariano Turla. Petitioner filed her opposition thereto based on the ground that respondent is not the daughter of the deceased Mariano Turla; that the spouses Mariano and Rufina Turla did not have any child; that she had not been legally adopted and no right arise from a falsified birth certificate. In respondent’s Opposition to petitioner’s motion to recall order appointing her as Special Administratrix, she claimed that she has the right to be appointed as such since she is the legitimate child of the late Mariano, hence, respondent’s blood relationship with the decedent had been put in issue. Subsequently, petitioner asked for a DNA test on respondent which the RTC granted as follows:
x x x Amidst the protestation of the petitioner (herein respondent) against the DNA analysis, the Court finds it prudent to allow the conduct of the DNA testing considering its definitive result will decisively lay to rest the issue of filiation of the petitioner with the deceased Mariano Turla for purposes of determining the issues on the other hand in this proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the said deceased and persons to whom the same should be distributed. The filiation issue will secure a legal right associated with paternity such as support or even inheritance as in the present case. The presumption of legitimacy is not conclusive and consequently may be overthrown by evidence to the contrary. To reject the conduct of the same and result that may be obtained therefrom is to deny progress in proceedings of this case.[21]
x x x x
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the above incidents are disposed in the following manner:
x x x x
(4) The motion for DNA testing filed by the oppositor is GRANTED, and accordingly, the parties are directed to make arrangements for DNA testing and analysis for the purpose of determining the paternity of petitioner Marilu Turla, upon consultation and coordination with laboratories and experts on the field of DNA analysis, at the expense of the oppositor.
Clearly, the DNA test was ordered to prove respondent’s paternity, but surprisingly, the test was conducted with the alleged siblings of Rufina, which showed that respondent is not related to Rufina. While respondent was shown to be not blood related to Rufina, however, the DNA result did not at all prove that she is not a daughter of Mariano, as petitioner claims and which the RTC’s order of DNA testing wanted to establish. Notably, petitioner alleges that she is Mariano’s half-sister, but it baffles us why she was not the one who underwent the DNA testing when such procedure could satisfactorily prove her contention that respondent is not Mariano’s daughter.
Moreover, Section 5 of A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, Rule on DNA evidence, provides that the grant of DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic admission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence that may be obtained as a result thereof. Here, the DNA result was not offered in accordance with the Rules on Evidence. Therefore, we do not find the DNA test results as a valid ground for the revocation of respondent’s appointment as Special Administratrix and her removal as such. Respondent’s removal was not grounded on reason, justice and legal principle. We find apropos the CA disquisition in this wise:
The estate to be administered is that of decedent Mariano Turla, hence, it is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Respondent Judge to remove petitioner on the ground that she is not related to Rufina Turla. True, that she claims to be the daughter of the Spouses Mariano Turla and Rufina Turla. However, a finding that she is not the daughter of Rufina Turla does not automatically mean that she is not the daughter of Mariano Turla as well, especially since in the two versions of her birth certificate, it was Mariano Turla who reported her birth and who signed the same as the father of the child.
x x x the DNA Test results used as a basis by the Respondent Judge in removing petitioner was not, at the very least, presented and offered as evidence. The rule is that after the DNA analysis is obtained, it shall be incumbent upon the parties who wish to avail of the same to offer the results in accordance with the rules of evidence. The RTC, in evaluating the DNA results upon presentation shall assess the same as evidence in keeping with Sections 7 and 8 of the Rule on DNA Evidence (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC). At that point when the RTC used it as basis for the removal of petitioner, the DNA Test Result is not yet considered evidence, depriving petitioner the opportunity to contest the same. In its Order dated May 9, 2013, the RTC backtracked a little and stated that the DNA Test Result was merely persuasively considered in the resolution of the issue. A perusal of the Order dated September 11, 2012 shows otherwise because it was evidently the only basis considered by the RTC in its ruling. As we already determined, the DNA Test Result is not even material and relevant evidence in this case. Petitioner’s filiation with Rufina Turla is not material in the resolution of the right of petitioner to the estate of Mariano Turla and/or to administer the same, whether as a regular or as a special administratrix.
Mariano’s execution of an affidavit of adjudication in 1994 for the extrajudicial settlement of the intestate estate of his late wife Rufina stating among others, “that she did not leave any descendant”, would not also prove that respondent is not a daughter of Mariano whose estate is under consideration.
Petitioner argues that respondent had violated her duties as the court-appointed Special Administratrix.
We do not agree.
Records show that respondent had submitted with the RTC an accounting of the funds that had come to her possession during the initial year of her administration. While she was directed by the RTC to submit an inventory of all the assets of the deceased that came into her possession and knowledge and for her to render an accounting thereof, such directive was only embodied in the RTC’s Order dated September 11, 2012 removing her as Special Administratrix which she assailed by filing a petition for certiorari with the CA, which reversed the same and now the subject of the instant petition.
Considering the above-discussion, we find no need to discuss the issue of whether the appointment of Norma Bernardino as the new Special Administratrix is in accordance with the rules.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated November 27, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 131032 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
PERALTA, J.:
Carpio, (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
G. R. No. 221684, JULY 30, 2018, MARIA T. CALMA, PETITIONER, VS. MARILU C. TURLA, RESPONDENT.
Citations omitted
SEE ALSO:
2 thoughts on “The grant of DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic admission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence that may be obtained as a result thereof.”