Scribd
Upload
43 views1 page

Maria T. Calma V Marilu C. Turla

Maria Calma opposed Marilu Turla's appointment as special administratrix of Mariano's estate, claiming she was Mariano's illegitimate half-sister. Turla argued Calma had no right to oppose as she was not an heir. The court agreed with the appellate court that the trial court abused its discretion in removing Turla as special administratrix based solely on DNA results showing she was not maternally related to Mariano's wife, as special administrators can be appointed or removed at the court's discretion for reasons other than those specified in the rules. The DNA results were also not properly admitted as evidence. Mariano's affidavit stating his wife left no descendants also did not prove Turla was

Uploaded by

Kirk Labowski
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
43 views1 page

Maria T. Calma V Marilu C. Turla

Maria Calma opposed Marilu Turla's appointment as special administratrix of Mariano's estate, claiming she was Mariano's illegitimate half-sister. Turla argued Calma had no right to oppose as she was not an heir. The court agreed with the appellate court that the trial court abused its discretion in removing Turla as special administratrix based solely on DNA results showing she was not maternally related to Mariano's wife, as special administrators can be appointed or removed at the court's discretion for reasons other than those specified in the rules. The DNA results were also not properly admitted as evidence. Mariano's affidavit stating his wife left no descendants also did not prove Turla was

Uploaded by

Kirk Labowski
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Maria T. Calma v Marilu C.

Turla

FACTS:
Calma, 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 to the petition for administration and alleged
that Turla is not a daughter of Mariano. Turla alleged that Calma had no right to oppose her
appointment as Special Administratrix of Mariano's estate since the former is not the latter's heir. Calma
filed a Motion to Order DNA Testing as respondent's blood relation to Mariano is in issue.
ISSUE:
Should the special administrator of the estate be removed on the basis of blood relationship?

RULING:
No. the Court agrees 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. 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.

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. In
the case, the DNA Test Result is not yet considered evidence, depriving petitioner the opportunity to
contest the same. 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.

DOCTRINE:
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.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy