In the Matter of the Estate of Mesa by Mesa

Opinion

\ i i! i'ii crt$ il., rrr: i:iiii:i Ci-:f"triT ; ';r {ll- j,i.i,,:l I IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM ir-""' fll -l fij I1:27 2 a IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE oF) J JOSE GARRIDO MESA. ) PRoBATE CASE No. P.KO6{31M1 ) 4 ) Deceased. ) 5 ) DECISION AND ORDER ) 6 ) BY VICTORIANA BLAS MESA, ) 7 ) ) 8 Petitioner. ) ) 9

t0 INTRODUCTION

1l This matter came before the Honorable Arthur R. Barcinas on the 7th day of January,

l2 2009, for hearing on a Petition to Appoint a Co-Administrator in this case. Attorney Mark S.

l3 Smith represented the original Petitioner, Victoriana Blas Mesa, and Attorney John S. Unpingco

74 represented the sister of the decedent, Anna M. Pangelinan, who is petitioning to be appointed as

15 a co-administrator of the estate. The Court now issues the following Decision and Order on the

t6 matter.

t7 PROCEDURAL HISTORY

t8 On May 9, 2}DS,Victoriana Blas Mesa, the wife of the decedent, petitioned this Court for

t9 Letters of Administration for the estate of her deceased husband as a surviving spouse. A Notice

20 ofHearing on the Petition for Letters ofAdministration was issued by the Court on July 29, 2008,

2l scheduling the hearing for October 3, 2008. Publication and posting was accomplished in

22 accordance with 15 GCA $ 3401, which no party now disputes. ln addition, on September 3,

23 2008, the Petitioner caused this notice to be mailed to the decedent's surviving children at their

24 current addresses by certified mail. Affidavit of Mailing ofJennifer Bautista, filed September 1 1,

25 2008.

26 Thereafter, at the first hearing on the Petition for Letters of Administration on October 3,

2008, Attomey Unpingco appeared on behalf of the surviving children claiming that the heirs I Estate of Jose Garrido Mesa; PR0093-08 DECISION AND ORDER 2 a J were not properly served. The Petitioner presented evidence of proper publication and posting

4 pursuant to 15 GCA $ 3401, and additional mailing to the children of the decedent. In order to

5 allow the children of the decedent an opportunity to address any concems, the Court continued

6 the hearing on the Petition for Letters ofAdministration to October 3 1, 2008, and ordered that any

7 objections to the Petitioner's request for letters of administration be filed by October 17,2008.

8 No written objections were filed by this date. Instead, on the day of the hearing, October 31,

9 2008, Attorney Unpingco appeared on behalf of Anna M. Pangelinan, sister of the decedent, and

10 filed a Petition for Letters of Administration on her behalf supported by declarations of the

l1 decedent's children. At that hearing, the Court appointed Victoriana Blas Mesa as the

t2 administrahix of the decedent's estate.

13 DISCUSSION

t4 15 GCA $ 1803 provides that "[t]he surviving partner of a decedent must not be appointed

15 administrator ofthe estate if anyperson interested in the estate objects to such survivingpartner's

t6 appointment." 15 GCA $1803 (2007). l7 & Anna M. Paneelinan Lacks Standing to File an Obiection 18 The Court first notes that the onlywritten filing presented in opposition to the Petition of t9 20 Victoriana Blas Mesa in this case is a "Petition for Letters of Administration" filed by Anna M.

2T Pangelinan. The Petition is signed solelyby Anna M. Pangelinan, and is merely supported by

22 affidavits of the decedent's children. The decedent's children did not sign the petition, and have 23 not filed anything in the case other than declarations in support of the petition of Anna M. 24 Pangelinan. The petition filed by Anna M. Pangelinan does not constitute an objection to the 25 appointment of Victoriana Blas Mesa as administratrix of the estate by an interested party under 26

Page2 of 11 I Estate of Jose Garrido Mesa; PR0093-08 DECISION AND ORDER 2

3 15 GCA $1803. It is not labeled as an objection, nor arc any of the filings attached to it labeled

4 as objections.

5 However, even if the Court considered the petition to constitute an objection, Anna M. 6 Pangelinan is not the proper party to make the objection under 15 GCA $1803. Although the 7 petition purports to raise objections to the appointment of Victoriana Blas Mesa as administrator 8

9 ofthe estate on the children's behalf, the children did not file the petition, and the Court finds that

10 AnnaM. Pangelinan, herself, does nothave standingto raise these objections ontwo grounds: (1)

l1 Anna M. Pangelinan is not an interested party under 15 GCA $1803, who may raise objections t2 to the surviving spouse's appointment as administrator; and (2) Anna M. Pangelinan does not l3 have third-party standing to raise objections to the surviving spouse's appointment as t4 administrator, on behalf of the decedent's children. l5 r6 Standing, a doctrine of justiciability, and a necessary component of subject matter

t7 jurisdiction, is a threshold matter that may be considered by the court at any time during its

18 consideration of a case, and may be raised by the court sua sponte. All courts have an t9 independent obligation to assure themselves that subject matter jurisdiction exists in every case, 20 at all points in the litigation, even in the absence of a challenge from one of the parties to the case. 2l Arbaughv. Y&H Corp.,546 U.S. 500,506, 5IaQ}}6);DaimlerChryslerCorp. v. Cuno,547 U.S. 22

23 332,340 (2006); Freytag v. C.I.R., 501 U.S. 868, 896 (1991)(Scalia, J., concurring).

24 It is fundamental that a party bringing an action in a court must have standing to sue. 25 Taitano v. Lujan,2005 Guam 26,nI5. Standing is a component of subject matter jurisdiction. Id

Page 3 of 1l I Estate of Jose Garrido Mesa; PR0093-08 DECISION AND ORDER 2 a at 1ll5 (citing Guam Imaging Consultants. Inc. v. Guam Memorial Hospital Auth.. 2004 Guam J

4 15,nl7 ("Standing is a threshold jurisdictional matter.")). As further held in Taitano v. Lujan,

5 "[i]f a party does not have standing to bring a claim, a court has no subject matter jurisdiction to 6 hear the claim." Id. A party invoking a court's jurisdiction must, at an irreducible minimum, 7 show that "he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively 8 illegal conduct of the defendant, and that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action 9 and is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision." Valley Foree Christian Coll. v. Ams. United 10

ll for Separation of Church and State. lnc.. 454 U.S. 464, 472,102 S.Ct. 752,70 L.Ed.2d 700

t2 (1e82).

t3 Standing is personal and does not exist where one seeks to assert the rights of another. t4 Tileston v. Ullman,3l8 U.S. 44,46,63 S.Ct. 493,87 L.Ed.603(1943). Aplaintiff "generally 15 must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights I6 r7 or interests of third parties." Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental StudyGroup.Inc..438

18 U.S. 59, 80, 98 s.Ct.2620,2634,57 L.Ed.zd 595 (1978). In general, to have standing to litigate,

I9 aparty must show that he has incurred, or is in immediate danger of incurring, some direct and 20 personal injury resulting from the violation of a constitutional or statutory right designed to 2l protect that party. Moose Lodee No. 107 v. kvis, 407 U.S. 163, 166-67,92 S.Ct. 1965,32 22 L.Ed.2d 627 (1972); Steel Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83,105, I 18 23

24 s.ct. 1003, r40L.Ed.zd2t0 (1998).

25 To satisff Article III standing requirements, a party must demonstrate an "injury in fact"

26 and must show that it is "likely'' that a favorable decision will provide redress for the injury.

Page 4 of 11 I Estate of Jose Garrido Mesa; PR0093-08 DECISION AND ORDER 2 a J Lujanv.DefendersofWildlife,504U.S.555,560-61,112S.Ct.2130, ll9L.Ed.zd35l(1992).

4 An "injury in fact" is an imminent or actual personal injury caused by the conduct being 5 challenged, which was the result of a violation of a constitutional or statutory right. Id. A

6 "conjectural or hypothetical" injury will not satisff the constitutional requirements to establish 7 standing. Id. In this context, an "imminent" injury differs from a "conjectural or hypothetical" 8 injury in that an imminent harm is one that is "certainly impending," and will result as a 9 consequence ofthe application of the unconstitutional act. Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 10

1l 158, 110 S.Ct. t7t7,IO9L.Ed.zd 135 (1990).

t2 In this case, the Petitioner, Anna M. Pangelinan, is alleging that she should be appointed

13 as co-administrator because : l4 Thebiological children andheirs, Jose Garrido Mesa, Jr., Eyshabel L.M. Taitano, 15 and Jason J. Mesa (hereinafter "children"), of my brother, the deceased, do not believe or trust that their step-mother Victoriana Blas Mesa, who has filed a l6 Petition for Letters of Administration, will be impartial and fair as to the t7 distribution of the decedent's estate and their interests in said estate.

18 Petition for Letters of Administration of Anna M. Pangelinan, p.1, flI, filed October 31, 2008.

t9 All of the purported violations of rights alleged bythe Petitioner are based upon injuries 20 which will hlpothetically be suffered by third parties, the children of the deceased, not the 2l Petitioner. Anna M. Pangelinan has yet to suffer any injury to herself, and under the statute, will 22 not suffer any injury if she is not appointed as a co-administratrix. Plaintiff makes no claim of 23 personal financial injury, and in fact, has admitted in her petition that she is not an heir to the 24

25 estate of her deceased brother, and does not stand to inherit any financial interest in his estate.

26 Petition for Letters of Administration of Anna M. Pangelinan, p.1, Tl ; andp.2,!f4, filed October

Page 5 of 11 I Estate of Jose Garrido Mesa; PR0093-08 DECISION AND ORDER 2 3 I , 2008. If, as Petitioner asserts, Victoriana Blas Mesa mishandles or misappropriates the estate, 3

4 Anna M. Pangelinan will suffer no harm, as she is not entitled to any portion of the estate.

5 Accordingly, as Anna M. Pangelinan's claims are solely based upon possible injuries to others, 6 Petitioner has no standing to bring an objection to the appointment of Victoriana Blas Mesa as 7 the administratrix of her brother's estate, as she has no interest in his estate, and accordingly, is 8 not an interested party who may object under 1 5 GCA $ I 803. 9 Assuming that Petitioner is attempting to assert her position in the stead of the decedent's l0 1l children who have submitted affidavits requesting that she be appointed co-administrator, Anna

T2 M. Pangelinan must still establish standing as a third party. In order to establish jus tertii (third l3 party) standing for equal protection and due process claims, a putative Petitioner must t4 demonstrate that (1) s/he suffers an injury-in-fact, (2) s/he has a'close'relationship with the l5 parties on whose behalf it seeks to sue, and (3) there is a hindrance or hindrances that prevent the l6 t7 third partyfrom suing directly. Caplin & Drysdale. Charteredv. United States,49l U.S. 617,624,

l8 109 S.Ct. 2646, 105 L.Ed.2d 528 (1989); and Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 129-130,125

l9 s.ct.564, t60L.Ed.2d 519 (2004). 20 The Court addresses each part of the test in turn. As discussed earlier, the Petitioner has 2l failed to show any personal injury-in-fact, thus failing the requisite minimum showing. However, 22 assuming for the pu{pose of the test that Petitioner could somehow impute the putative injuries 23

24 of the decedent's children as her own, Petitioner still fails to establish "closeness" and the

25 inability of the third party to bring suit as required under the test. The Supreme Court has limited

26 the "closeness" standard to allow third party standing only where o'enforcement of the challenged

Page 6 of 11 I Estate of Jose Garrido Mesa; PR0093-08 DECISION AND ORDER 2 restriction against the litigant would result indirectly in the violation of third parties' rights." J

4 Kowalskiv. Tesmer,543 U.S. 125,131,1,25 S.Ct. 564, I60L.Ed.2d 519 (200a)(citingWarthv.

5 Seldin, 422 U .5. 490, 5 10, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (197 5)).

6 No legal "close relationship" can be found to exist between the Petitioner and decedent's 7 children. No relationship in parity is alleged to exist as to the Petitioner and the decedent's 8 children. There is no argument to be made that enforcement of the Court's order appointing 9 Victoriana Blas Mesa against this Petitioner will indirectly violate the rights of the decedent's 10

ll children as required under the third party standing limitations delineated by the United States

t2 Supreme Court.

13 More importantly, Petitioner presents no evidence that the decedent's children were l4 hindered in seeking to assert their own claims and objections, as required by the third prong of 15 the test. All of the decedent's children are adults. Appearance. Waiver and Nomination and t6 Consent to Appointment of Administrator of Eyshabela L.M.Taitano; Jason J. Mesa; and Jose l7 18 Ga:rido Mesa, Jr., filed October 31, 2008. More importantly, at hearing on October 3,2008,

t9 Attorney John S. Unpingco appeared before the Court and specifically represented to the Court 20 that he was serving in the capacity of counsel for the children of the decedent. Later, he filed an 2I entry of appearance as counsel for the decedent's children. Entry ofAppearance and Request for 22 Notice Pursuant to 15 GCA d3403, filed October 28,2008. The Court took this information into 23

24 consideration on October 3, 2008, delayed the appointment of Victoriana Blas Mesa as

25 administratrix of the estate, and the decedent's children were afforded the opportunity to address

26 any issues or concerns they had with the appointment of Victoriana Blas Mesa and file any

PageT of 1l 1 Estate of Jose Garrido Mesa: PR0093-08 DECISION AND ORDER 2 a objections with the Court by October 17,2008. However, the decedent's children did not do so. J

4 The decedent's children were represented by counsel prior to the appointment ofVictoriana Blas

5 Mesa as administratrix, with notice of the proceedings. Nothing prevented or hindered the ability

6 of the decedent's children to assert their own claims or objections. 7 The purpose of the strict requirements of third party standing is to limit the endless 8 possibilities of litigation. Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 134,125 S.Ct. 564, 160 L.Ed.zd 9 519 (2004). Accordingly, the Petitioner, Anna M. Pangelinan cannot now seek to attack the 10

ll appointment of Victoriana Blas Mesa through her own petition to become co-administratrix, as

t2 she is not the proper person to present these claims or objections.

13 B) The Petition is Both Untimely atrd Improperly Filed. t4 More important to this Court's analysis is the impropriety and untimeliness of the filing 15 presented by Anna M. Pangelinan. Even if Anna M. Pangelinan had standing to assert an t6 t7 objection under 15 GCA $ 1803, and the Court considered the Petition as a proper objection

l8 raised by an interested party, allowing the nomination of Anna M. Pangelinan as administratrix

I9 in priority over Victoriana Blas Mesa pursuant to 15 GCA $$ 1S03 and 1807, Rule 6(b) of the 20 Guam Rules of Civil Procedure prohibits its filing as untimely, providing in relevant part: 2l Enlargement. When by these rules or by a notice given thereunder or by 22 order of court an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion (l) with or 23 without motion or notice order the period enlarged if request therefor is made 24 before the expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order, or (2) upon motion made after the expiration of the specified time 25 period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusableneglect.... 26

Page 8 of 1l I Estate of Jose Ganido Mesa; PR0093-08 DECISION AND ORDER 2 a Rule 6(b) grants a court wide discretion to allow additional time when a request is made J

4 prior to the expiration of the time period set by the court or prescribed by the Rules of Civil

5 Procedure. GRCP Rule 6(b)(1). However, when the request is made after the expiration of the 6 time period set by the court or prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 6(b) requires that 7 apartymustshow"excusableneglect"infailingtotimelyfiletherequest. G.R.C.P.Rule6(b)(2). 8 Additionally, a court may exercise its discretion under Rule 6(b) only for "cause shown," thus 9 requiring that a party requesting an enlargement of time must also demonstrate justification for l0 1l the issuance of an extension. Id.

t2 Thus, even if the Court considers Anna M. Pangelinan's Petition for Letters of 13 Administration as a valid objection to Victoriana Blas Mesa's appointment as administrator in l4 this case, the objection was not filed before the cut-off date set by the Court, nor was any request l5 for an extension ever filed. The Court ordered that any objection to Victoriana Blas Mesa's t6 l7 petition be filed by October 17, 2008. Anna M. Pangelinan's Petition for Letters of

18 Administration was not filed until October 31, 2008. Anna M. Pangelinan has provided no

t9 explanation for the lateness of the filing, and proffers no showing of good cause or excusable 20 neglect in failing to file the "objection" or petition on or before October 17,2008, as ordered by 2l the Court. Therefore, it was untimely. 22 Further, Anna M. Pangelinan never requested an extension of time to file an objection, 23

24 either before or after the time period proscribed by the Court had run. Although the Court has

25 discretion to grant extensions, no request was ever made to extend the time to file such an

26 objection. Because Anna M. Pangelinan failed to request an extension, there was also a failure

Page9of 11 I Estate of Jose Garrido Mesa: PR0093-08 DECISIONAND ORDER 2 to provide any cause or excusable neglect in filing the untimely objection. J

4 Consequently, Anna M. Pangelinan's proffered objection contained within her Petition

5 for Letters of Administration was untimely and unjustified under Rule 6(b) of the Guam Rules 6 of Civil Procedure, and must be denied. 7 Additionally, the Court cannot grant the Petition of Anna M. Pangelinan, as there is no 8 evidencethatitwasnoticedasrequiredunder l5 GCA $$1813 and3401. ThePetitionerprovided 9 no evidence ofposting of the petition at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing on October 31, 10

1l 2008, no evidence of publication in a newspaper for three (3) consecutive days at least ten (10)

l2 days before the hearing on October 31, 2008, or personal service to Victoriana Blas Mesa as an

13 heirofthedecedent. l5GCA$$3401(2)and(3)(b)(1XC). Althoughthechildrenofadecedent t4 may nominate a person to be administrator if they themselves are ineligible pursuant to 15 GCA l5 $1807, the probate code must be strictly followed, and a mere nomination does not relieve the l6 nominated petitioner from the required rules of service and publication. I7 l8 Finally, the Court's final order granting letters of administration to Victoriana Blas Mesa

t9 is conclusive, and may not be attacked after it was granted by the Court. l5 GCA $1405 states; 20 In the absence of fraud in its procurement, an order ofthe Superior Court of Guam 2l granting . . letters of administration, when such order becomes final, is a conclusive determination of the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Guam 22 (except when based upon the effoneous assumption of death), and cannot be collaterally attacked. 23

24 15 GCA $140s (2007).

25 No fraud has been alleged, and accordingly, the sister of the decedent may not use a 26

Page 10 of 11 1 Estate of Jose Garrido Mesa; PR0093-08 DECISION AND ORDER 2 petition to appoint a co-administrator to collaterally attack Victoriana Blas Mesa's status as the J

4 sole administratrix of this estate.

5 CONCLUSION 6 After hearing arguments on the motion and considering all of the filings and evidence 7 presented, the Court finds that Anna M. Pangelinan and the children of the decedent have failed 8 to preserrt any basis upon which to base the motion to appoint a co-administrator for this estate. 9 Based upon the foregoing, the Motion to Appoint a Co-Administrator is DENIED. 10

1l z00s t2 SO ORDERED, this JuL 01 13

l4 l5 HONORABLE ARTIIUR R. BARCINAS Judge, Superior Court of Guam t6 t7 l8 T9

2l 22

23 ,**$:[$l,is'''ffi'j$ 24

Page ll of 11