A.M. No. P-01-1522 - Fineza vs. Aruelo

In 1999, petitioners Jennifer T. Chua-Locsin, Benison T. Chua, and Baldwin T. Chua filed a petition for letters of administration with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 112, Pasay City.
Betty T. Chua was appointed as administratrix of the intestate estate of the deceased Jose L. Chua, and she subsequently submitted an inventory listing the decedent’s real and personal properties.

Absolute Management Corporation, a creditor of the deceased, filed a substantial claim on the estate amounting to P63,699,437.74.
During the administration, Absolute Management Corporation discovered that shares of stock in Ayala Sales Corporation and Ayala Construction Supply, Inc. were not included in the inventory.

Absolute Management Corporation filed a motion for the examination of the administratrix and other alleged parties to explain the omission of the shares.
The motion’s premise was based on Section 6, Rule 87 of the Revised Rules of Court, which allows for the court to summon and examine by oath any person suspected of concealing or misappropriating estate assets.

Betty T. Chua responded by alleging that the said shares had already been assigned and transferred before the death of the decedent, submitting deeds of assignment as proof.
Judge Manuel P. Dumatol of the Regional Trial Court accepted the explanation and denied the motion filed by Absolute Management Corporation, reasoning that the motion was essentially a fishing expedition for evidence.

Absolute Management Corporation, aggrieved by the trial court’s decision, filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the Court of Appeals challenging the denial of its motion and contending grave abuse of discretion.
During the appellate proceedings, evidence was presented showing discrepancies in the notarization process (e.g., certifications from the Clerk of Court indicating that the notary public was not in the Roll of Notaries or that certain documents were missing from notarial reports).

The Court of Appeals set aside the trial court order of February 7, 2000, and ordered that the trial court give due course to the Motion for the Examination of the Administratrix and Others.
In its decision, the appellate court emphasized that the presentation of the deeds of assignment by the administratrix did not negate the possibility of concealment via simulated instruments.

Whether the trial court erred in categorically denying Absolute Management Corporation’s motion, especially given its inherent duty to supervise the complete inventory of the decedent’s properties.

Whether Section 6, Rule 87 of the Revised Rules of Court is a mandatory provision or a directory guideline in circumstances where evidence of concealed or misappropriated estate assets is involved.
Whether the existence of executed deeds of assignment by the decedent automatically precludes suspicions of concealment or fraudulent conveyance.

Whether the alleged defects in the petition for certiorari (such as the filing of the certificate of non-forum shopping by counsel instead of an authorized officer, the attachment of a duplicate original copy of the challenged order, and issues with proof of service) warrant the dismissal of the petition.