Case Summary (G.R. No. 163707)
Procedural History
– June 13, 1997: Private respondents filed a petition for letters of administration before RTC Makati, Branch 138.
– Petitioner opposed, moved to dismiss for lack of necessity of administration and failure to prove illegitimate filiation during decedent’s lifetime.
– Co-heirs filed joint motions to dismiss, challenging the counsel-signed certification against forum shopping and alleging prior waiver via a June 7, 1993 Release and Waiver of Claim.
– RTC denied dismissals (July 21, 2000; July 17, 2003).
– Court of Appeals affirmed denial in Decision of January 22, 2004, and denied reconsideration on May 25, 2004.
– Petitioner’s certiorari petition to the Supreme Court followed.
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decisions).
– Rules of Court: Rule 7, Section 5 (certification against forum shopping); Rule 74, Section 1 (administration not required if no debts).
– Family Code (Arts. 172–175) on proof of filiation and prescription.
– Civil Code: Article 285 (pre-Family Code recognition prescriptions), Article 1044 (repudiation of inheritance).
Issues Presented
- Whether private respondents’ petition must be dismissed for improper certification against forum shopping.
- Whether the Release and Waiver of Claim bars private respondents from asserting successional rights.
- Whether private respondents are barred by prescription from proving their filiation.
Certification Against Forum Shopping
Rule 7, Section 5 mandates that the non-forum-shopping certification be executed by the principal party. Nevertheless, the Court applied a liberal interpretation in the interest of substantial justice. Relying on Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals, the procedural lapse of counsel-signed certification was excused due to absence of bad faith and the compelling merits of the dispute.
Validity of the Release and Waiver of Claim
A valid waiver of hereditary rights must be clear, unequivocal, and show intent to relinquish such rights. The Release and Waiver of Claim received ₱300,000.00 and an educational plan “in full settlement of any and all claims…against the estate,” but made no explicit reference to hereditary shares. Under Civil Code Article 1044, parents or guardians may not repudiate a minor’s inheritance without judicial authorization. The waiver was neither judicially sanctioned nor explicitly targeted hereditary rights; hence, it is void and cannot preclude private respondents’ succession claims. Moreover, ignorance of a right negates waiver, and respondents could not knowingly waive unestablished rights.
Prescription and Proof of Filiation
Article 285 of the Civil Code and Articles 172–175 of the Family Code establish distinct prescription periods based on the mode of proof:
- Recognition by birth record or public/private instrument may be filed during the lifetime of the alleged parent.
- Actions based on open and continuous possession must be brought during the parent’s lifetime, with heirs given five years post-majority under Article 173.
Because private respondents have not yet presented evidenc
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 163707)
Facts of the Case
- On June 13, 1997, minors Karen Oanes Wei and Kamille Oanes Wei, through their mother Remedios Oanes, filed a petition for letters of administration before RTC Makati, Branch 138, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 4549, entitled “Intestate Estate of Sima Wei (a.k.a. Rufino Guy Susim).”
- Decedent Sima Wei died intestate on October 29, 1992, in Makati City, leaving an estate valued at ₱10,000,000.00 in real and personal properties.
- Known heirs included surviving spouse Shirley Guy and legitimate children Emy, Jeanne, Cristina, George, and Michael, all surnamed Guy; private respondents alleged recognized illegitimate filiation to claim successional rights.
- Petition prayed for the appointment of a regular administrator and, in the interim, for Michael C. Guy to serve as Special Administrator.
- Petition was accompanied by a Certification Against Forum Shopping signed by counsel Sedfrey A. Ordoñez.
Procedural History
- Petitioner Michael C. Guy filed a Comment/Opposition praying for dismissal, asserting no estate debts (invoking Section 1, Rule 74, Rules of Court) and that filiation must have been established under Family Code Article 175 during decedent’s lifetime.
- Co-heirs filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss alleging defective certification, arguing Remedios, not counsel, should have signed for her minor daughters (Section 5, Rule 7, Rules of Court).
- Petitioner and co-heirs filed a Supplemental Motion to Dismiss based on a June 7, 1993 Release and Waiver signed by Remedios, claiming full settlement of any claims against the estate.
- RTC denied both the Joint and Supplemental Motions to Dismiss, finding no guardian’s renunciation and applying liberal rule application to accept counsel’s certification.
- Petitioner’s mo