10/25/24, 6:36 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
837 Phil. 408
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 221684, July 30, 2018 ]
MARIA T. CALMA, PETITIONER, VS. MARILU C. TURLA,
RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the Decision[1] dated November 27,
2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. SP No. 131032.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On March 12, 2009, respondent Marilu C. Turla filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 22, Quezon City a Petition[2] for Letters of Administration alleging, among others,
that her father, Mariano C. Turla, died[3] intestate on February 5, 2009, leaving real
properties located in Quezon City and Caloocan City, bank deposits and other personal
properties, all with an estimated value of P3,000,000.00; that she is the sole legal heir
entitled to inherit and succeed to the estate of her deceased father who did not leave any
other descendant or other heir entitled to the estate as his wife, Rufina de Castro, had
predeceased him; and that she is entitled to be issued letters of administration. She
presented her Certificate of Live Birth[4] signed and registered by the deceased himself
with the Local Civil Registrar of Manila.
As the petition was sufficient in form and substance, the RTC gave due course to it and set
the petition for hearing. On April 21, 2009, the Letter of Special Administration[5] was
issued to respondent.
Petitioner Maria Turla Calma,[6] claiming to be the surviving youngest half-sister of
Mariano as he was her mother's illegitimate son before her marriage to her father, filed an
Opposition[7] to the petition for administration and alleged that respondent is not a
daughter of Mariano; that the information recited in her two birth certificates are false, the
truth being that Mariano and his wife Rufina did not have any child. She argued that she is
entitled to the administration of the estate of her half-brother and nominated Norma
Bernardino, who has been managing the business and other financial affairs of the
decedent, to take charge of the management and preservation of the estate pending its
distribution to the heirs.
Respondent filed her Reply[8] stating that her filiation had been conclusively proven by
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64407 1/9
10/25/24, 6:36 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
her record of birth which was duly authenticated by the Civil Registrar General of the
National Statistics Office (NSO), and only the late Mariano or his wife had the right to
impugn her legitimacy; that petitioner had no right to oppose her appointment as Special
Administratrix of Mariano's estate since the former is not the latter's heir; that in her
capacity as the Special Administratrix of Mariano's estate, she had filed several cases
against Norma and her husband; and thus, Norma is not qualified to act as an
administratrix because she has an interest antagonistic to the estate.
Spouses Robert and Norma Bernardino filed a Motion for Leave of Court to Intervene as
Oppositors which was denied by the RTC in an Order dated June 2, 2010.
Petitioner also filed a Motion to Recall Order[9] appointing respondent as Special
Administratrix on the ground that she has been collecting rentals from the properties of the
decedent for her personal gain and that she has been filing malicious suits against the
Spouses Bernardino. Respondent filed her Opposition[10] thereto stating, among others,
that she has all the right to be appointed as Special Administratrix since she is the
legitimate daughter of the deceased Mariano and that she is able to protect and preserve
the estate from Norma, the one being recommended by petitioner.
Petitioner filed an undated Rejoinder claiming that the case filed against Norma before the
RTC Makati, Branch 59, related to two promissory notes where the payee was Mariano
Turla ITF: Norma C. Bernardino, hence, a trust account was created which did not belong
to the estate of the deceased. Respondent filed her Reply to Rejoinder contending that in
case Norma is appointed as Regular Administrator of the estate, she will succeed in taking
all the assets of the estate for her own use and benefit.
On June 29, 2009, petitioner filed a Motion to Order DNA Testing as respondent's blood
relation to Mariano is in issue. Respondent opposed the same on the ground that petitioner
lacked the legal right or personality to request for a DNA test as she has no legal interest in
the matter in litigation.
On May 12, 2010, respondent filed her initial Accounting[11] of the funds that have come
to her possession.
In an Order dated June 25, 2010, the RTC granted petitioner's motion for an order for
DNA testing,[12] the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the above incidents are disposed in the
following manner.
xxxx
(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 Marilu Turla, upon consultation and
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64407 2/9
10/25/24, 6:36 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
coordination with laboratories and experts on the field of DNA
analysis at the expense of oppositor.[13]
Petitioner filed a motion to remove respondent as Special Administratrix on grounds that
she had incurred expenses mostly legal without proper receipts which cannot be returned if
the same is disallowed since it is not guaranteed that she will be declared as one of the
heirs. Respondent opposed the same arguing that the grounds raised in the motion are not
sufficient for her removal and are highly speculative; that she has made an honest and
truthful accounting for the approval of the intestate court; and that the said motion was
filed for the purpose of stopping her from prosecuting the various actions she had filed
against the Bernardino spouses to recover properties belonging to the estate.
On August 28, 2012, the RTC received the Report of Dr. Maria Corazon A. de Ungria,
Head of the DNA Analysis Laboratory, UP Natural Sciences Research Institute (NSRI), on
the DNA test on the blood samples from Rufina's alleged siblings and respondent, with the
following conclusion:
Based on the results of mitochondrial DNA analysis there is no possibility that
Mr. Ireneo S. de Castro and Ms. Basilia de Castro Maningas are maternal
relatives of Ms. Marilu de Castro Turla.[14]
On September 11, 2012, the RTC issued an Order,[15] the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Remove Marilu Turla as
Special Administratrix filed by oppositor Maria Calma Turla is hereby
GRANTED. Accordingly, petitioner Marilu C. Turla is REMOVED as Special
Administratrix in this case. Petitioner is hereby ordered 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 within thirty (30) days from receipt
hereof.
In the meantime, let Letters of Special Administration issue in favor of Norma
Bernardino who is hereby APPOINTED as Special Administratrix of the estate
of the deceased Mariano C. Turla, effective upon the filing of a bond in the
amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) and the taking of the
corresponding Oath of Office.
Petitioner Marilu Turla is hereby ordered to turn-over possession of all the
assets of the deceased Mariano Turla which came into her possession to Norma
Bernardino within thirty (30) days from the time the latter formally takes her
Oath of Office.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64407 3/9
10/25/24, 6:36 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
SO ORDERED.[16]
In finding merit to petitioner's motion to remove respondent as Special Administratix, the
RTC ruled that while respondent's birth certificate stated her father to be Mariano and her
mother to be Rufina, the DNA test results conclusively showed that she is not Rufina's
daughter.
Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied m an Order[17] dated May 9, 2013.
Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. After the submission of the parties'
respective pleadings, the case was submitted for decision.
On November 27, 2015, the CA issued the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The [Order]
dated September 11, 2012 issued by the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 80, [and]
the Order dated May 9, 2013 issued by Branch 76 of the same court, in Special
Proceedings No. Q-09-64479, are ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.[18]
Hence this petition for review.
Petitioner contends that respondent had petitioned the RTC to be appointed as Special
Administratrix of the intestate estate of Mariano on the basis of her birth certificate
showing that she is the daughter of Rufina, wife of Mariano; that in 1994, however,
Mariano executed an affidavit of adjudication for the extrajudicial settlement of the
intestate estate of the late Rufina wherein he stated that "being her surviving spouse, I am
the sole legal heir entitled to succeed to and inherit the estate of the said deceased who did
not leave any descendant, ascendant or any other heir entitled in her estate"; that while
respondent's birth certificate states her father to be Mariano Turla and her mother Rufina
de Castro, the DNA results conclusively showed that she is not Rufina's daughter, so her
own birth certificate stating Rufina as her mother was fraudulent. She avers that she had
put in issue the blood relationship of the respondent with the deceased Mariano.
Petitioner also argues that respondent had violated her duties as Special Administratrix as
the latter failed to submit an inventory and to render an accounting thereof, hence there
was a good reason for the RTC to remove her. Moreover, she failed to comply with the
Order to submit inventory and render accounting and to turn over possession to the new
administrator; and that the appointment of Norma Bernardino as the new Special
Administratrix is in accordance with the rules.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64407 4/9
10/25/24, 6:36 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
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.[19] 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.[20]
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]
xxxx
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the above incidents are disposed in the
following manner:
xxxx
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64407 5/9
10/25/24, 6:36 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
(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.[22]
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
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64407 6/9
10/25/24, 6:36 PM E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
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.[23]
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.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, and Reyes, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1]Penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with Associate Justices Marlene
Gonzales-Sison Pedro B. Corales concurring; rollo, pp. 29-45.
[2] Docketed as Special Proceeding No. Q-09-64479; CA rollo, pp. 38-41.
[3] Certificate of Death, id. at 42.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64407 7/9
