G.R. No. 165088 - Ramirez vs. Ramirez

Antonio Tanpoco died in 1920 leaving an estate valued at over P300,000.
In his will, he bequeathed one-half of his estate to his legitimate son, Tan Kim Hong, and divided the remaining half equally among three adopted sons: Tan Kimco, Tan Kimbio, and Tan Kim Choo.
Antonio Tanpoco appointed Go Siu San as executor of his will, expressly providing that no bond was necessary.

On November 22, 1920, two Chinese citizens, Tan Kim Lay and Te Sue, were appointed and qualified as commissioners for the estate.
The commissioners published a notice to creditors directing them to present their claims within six months at the office of Attorney M. G. Goyena in Manila.

On June 29, 1921, the commissioners presented their report to the court, which, among other matters, noted the allowance of a claim purportedly in favor of Tan Kim Hong.
At that time, all heirs—including Tan Kim Hong—were minors residing in China, along with the deceased’s widow.
That same day, the executor filed a motion asking for the appointment of an attorney of his choice as curador ad litem for the minor heirs, listing the ages of the heirs (Tan Kimco, age 20; Tan Kim Hong, age 12; Tan Kimbio, age 11; and Tan Kim Choo, age 4) and stressing that all were in China with an unknown date of return.

The court initially ignored the executor’s request but later, on July 2, 1921, appointed Mr. Felipe Canillas as curador ad litem.
Mr. Canillas treated his appointment as a mere formality, undertaking no substantial investigation of the facts, and his appointment was ratified when the commissioners’ report was approved on July 14, 1922.

In September 1922, the minor heirs arrived in Manila and promptly employed counsel to protect their interests.
It was at that point that Chan Seng, acting as guardian for Tan Kim Choo, became aware of the claim allowance made in favor of Tan Kim Hong.

On November 27, 1922, following a motion by Chan Seng, Judge Harvey ordered an investigation into the administration of the estate by executor Go Siu San.
Mr. Canillas, still serving as curador ad litem, submitted a written report to the court noting irregularities in the salary ledgers of 1920 and 1921—particularly the crediting of substantial sums (P20,000.00 on January 25; P10,000.00 on February 7; P10,000.00 on February 13; and a total reduction in 1921 to precisely P38,766.69) in favor of Tan Kim Hong.
The report questioned the basis, legality, and proper representation regarding the claim, suggesting the credits were unauthorized entries with no evidence of presentation by a legally entitled representative for the minor.

The investigation uncovered that the claim for Tan Kim Hong was not supported by any voucher, proper documentation, or presentation by a guardian/curador on behalf of the minor.
Testimonies, including that of commissioner Te Sue, revealed that the claim was not actually received as a formal submission, but rather was derived from entries in the deceased’s business books made by a bookkeeper.
Based on these findings, the investigation recommended the removal of executor Go Siu San for gross misconduct and fraud, and called for the annulment of Tan Kim Hong’s claim.
Judge Harvey subsequently removed Go Siu San as executor, noting the irregular and unfounded nature of the claim.

On November 14, 1923, the then-current administrator applied for authority from the court to pay the contentious claim.
Chan Seng, representing and protecting the interests of one of the minor heirs, objected to this application on the ground that the claim was void, fictitious, and fraudulent.
The court denied the application, holding that the claim was legally unsupportable.

Tan Kim Hong appealed the lower court’s ruling, arguing that the objections to the allowance of the claim were erroneous and citing sections 773, 774, and 775 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The appellant contended that the report of the commissioners, having been made and filed on June 29, 1921 (and supposedly final on July 14, 1921), should have precluded subsequent objections due to the lapse of the statutory appeal period.
Citing the case of De los Santos vs. Reyes, the appellant argued for the automatic finality of the claim-report; however, a distinction was drawn between that case and the instant matter because, in the current case, all interested parties were minors with no legal representation at the time of the report.
The court ultimately observed that the lack of proper presentation of any claim—especially one involving minors—rendered the commissioners’ action void ab initio, and constituted a fraud upon the appellee.

Whether the alleged claim in favor of Tan Kim Hong was validly presented and authorized despite his minority and the absence of any guardian or curador acting on his behalf.
Whether the commissioners surpassed their jurisdiction by allowing an unpresented claim based solely on unauthorized bookkeeping entries.
Whether the appointment of a curador ad litem, without a substantive investigation of the claim’s legitimacy, fulfilled the procedural safeguards required by law.
Whether the allowance of the claim, and the subsequent lack of adherence to statutory time limits for objections, should render it res judicata as argued by the appellant.
The proper interpretation and application of sections 773, 774, and 775 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the context of estate administration and claims involving minors.
Whether the procedural irregularities and the failure to secure proper representation for the minor heirs amount to a legal and equitable basis for annulling the claim.
Whether the removal of the executor for gross misconduct was justified based on the fraudulent and unauthorized crediting against the estate.