CA overturns RTC judge’s ruling on Jose Marcelo Sr.’s estate

CA overturns RTC judge’s ruling on Jose Marcelo Sr.’s estate

• 
• 

Details

Category: Nation

13 Jul 2014

Written by Joel R. San Juan

THE Court of Appeals (CA) has set aside the order issued by a trial court judge favoring one party in a dispute embroiling the estate of the late Jose Marcelo Sr., a well-known industrialist.

In a 25-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Francisco Acosta, CA Ninth Division declared that Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Quezon City Branch 76 presiding Judge Alexander Balut committed “grave abuse of discretion,” when he issued a writ of execution without basis and to the detriment of the rights of the other heirs.

The CA also castigated Balut for including in the writ of execution some assets that do not actually belong to the Marcelo patriarch’s estate by relying solely on the inventory submitted by his court-appointed administrator, Jose Marcelo Jr.

Jose Jr., the youngest of the four Marcelo siblings, was designated as the estate administrator after his elder brother and the original administrator, Edward, died in 2009.

Edward had been the estate administrator since their father passed away in 1987.

The designation of Jose Jr. as administrator was vehemently opposed by Edward’s children John Steven Marcelo and Anna Melinda Marcelo-Revilla, the liquidator of the Marcelo Group of Companies.

In June 2010 Jose Jr. secured a partial judgment in his favor with the RTC in Quezon City, as probate court, ordering Edward’s children to turn over to him stock certificates and land titles, among others.

In September 2013 Balut issued a new order and a corresponding writ of execution modifying the 2010 judgment by including assets owned and registered under the name of the Marcelo Group of Companies, which Edward’s children claimed were not part of the estate of the Marcelo patriarch.

This prompted Anna Melinda and John Steven to separately file a petition with the CA seeking to nullify Balut’s latest directives which was later consoldiated.

They argued the probate court had no jurisdiction and acted with grave abuse of discretion in including assets owned by the Marcelo Group of Companies in the estate of Jose Sr. without proper hearing and despite the order dated November 5, 2012, issued by the RTC  in Malabon, which ruled the said assets are owned by the companies and are to be excluded from the inventory of Jose Sr.’s estate.

The CA declared the inventory, “on its face, included properties not registered in the name of Jose Sr.”

It noted it is the duty of the probate court to determine whether or not said properties should be included in the inventory or list of the properties to be administered.