Barretto Estate (Re), 2025 BCSC 239

Information

The recent case out of British Columbia involves Terence C. Barretto (“Terence”) who sought to revoke a grant of administration granted to Jorge T. Barretto, Jr. (“Jorge”) respecting the estate of Jorge Chu Barretto (the “Estate”). Both parties’ claim the other is unfit to manage the estate, which also involves legal proceedings in the Philippines. Terence has initiated a related criminal matter in the Philippines, resulting in an arrest warrant for Jorge. Terence accuses Jorge of misleading the court, for failing to provide full disclosure and notice respecting the administration of the estate. Jorge admits to certain errors but argues such are not significant so to as warrant a return of certificate. If the court revokes the grant, it must decide whether to reissue it and to whom. Terence believes the estate claims should be resolved in the Philippines or assigned and certificate granted to him instead. Jorge argues it should stay with him, or only in the alternative, to his daughter, Alana. The court will first determine if revocation is justified before deciding on reissuance.[1]

Background Facts

A. The Parties and the Deceased

Jorge Chu Barretto passed away intestate on September 27, 2012, in Richmond, British Columbia. He lived between British Columbia and the Philippines. His spouse was presumed murdered in the Philippines in 2003. Jorge had two sons: Jorge T. Barretto, Jr., residing in Vancouver, and Eduardo, who lived in the Philippines and passed away in 2020. Terence, the applicant, is Eduardo’s son and resides in the Philippines.[2]

B. The Philippines Legal Proceedings

i. Estate Proceeding

In 2021, Terence applied for letters of administration in the Philippines. Jorge opposed this application, indicating his awareness of Terence’s involvement in the estate matters.[3]

ii. Criminal Proceeding

A warrant for Jorge’s arrest was issued in 2021, related to allegations of falsifying documents about shares held  in Panapino Holdings. Terence is the complainant in this criminal matter.[4]

C. The British Columbia Application for Grant of Administration

Jorge applied for a grant of administration in British Columbia in 2022, without notifying Terence. He acknowledged making untrue representations in his application. The court granted him administration in 2023.[5]

D. The Estate Assets

The estate includes shares in Treasure Land and Syndicated Management Group, both Philippine companies. Terence claims the Treasure Land shares were transferred to Eduardo in 2001 and are not part of the estate. The only tangible asset listed is a house in Adelfa, Philippines, which Jorge claims was fraudulently transferred to Eduardo. Terence currently resides in this house.[6]

Legal Issues

1. Revocation of the Grant of Administration
2. Who should the Administration be succeeded/reissued to

1. Revocation of the Grand of Administration:

In addressing this issue, the court referred to the judgement in, Narsaiya Estate (Re), 2023 BCSC 1350 at paras. 30-32 , and the rules of court, stating its authority as follows:[7]

a)   Rule 25-5(5) provides that, on application, the Court may order that an estate grant be revoked;

b)   Rule 25-14(1)(c) provides that, where there has been an application for estate grant, a person may bring an application under Part 8 of the Rulesfor an order revoking an estate grant; and

c)   Rule 25-1(1)(b) defines “estate grant” as including a grant of administration, whether the grant is made for general, special or limited purposes.

The Court also referenced the Court of Appeal decision in, Desbiens v. Smith, 2010 BCCA 394 at para. 62 for further authority considerations in revoking a grant of administration stating:[8]

“Courts have jurisdiction to revoke estate grants where evidence discloses that the grant ought not to have issued. There are numerous grounds on which probate can be revoked…In short, where it is shown that a condition precedent to the grant of probate was not fulfilled, the court has jurisdiction to revoke the grant […]”[9]

In this instance, on the facts, the court ultimately decided to revoke the B.C Estate Grant on citing the rationale as, it ought not to have been issued to begin with.  The court considered Section 121 of the Wills Estate Succession Act (WESA)[10] which requires notice to be given to certain individuals when seeking probate or letters of administration. In this case, the respondent failed to notify the applicant, despite being engaged in related litigation in the Philippines. The court inferred this was a strategic decision to gain an advantage. The respondent claimed misunderstanding, but the court noted that experienced counsel should have clarified the notice requirements. The Court of Appeal has established that fraudulent certification of notice can lead to revocation of the grant. While revocation is discretionary, the failure to provide notice is a significant factor, especially when accompanied by other misrepresentations.[11]

Notably, since the respondent also did not disclose fraud charges in the Philippines, which, while not required, was relevant due to the ex parte nature of the application, the court concluded that the respondent’s conduct, including failure to provide notice and misrepresentations, warranted revocation of the estate grant to maintain the integrity of the justice system.[12]

2. Who should the Administration be reissued to

The court considered Section 159(1) of the WESA which states:[13]

If the court discharges or removes a personal representative, the court

a)  must appoint another person who consents to act as the substitute personal representative, unless

     i. the administration of the estate is complete, or

     ii. the court does not consider a new appointment necessary, and

b)   may, if the personal representative has resigned or is removed as a trustee, concurrently appoint the person referred to in paragraph (a) as trustee under the Trustee Act in place of the trustee being discharged or removed.

However, in this case, the court decided not to appoint a substitute administrator because there are no assets of the Estate tied directly or solely to British Columbia jurisdiction; the estate’s assets, including shares and property, are in the Philippines, where administration is already underway. The court also considered allegations of fraud related to the transfer of a property in the Philippines, but determined these issues should be resolved there.

The court expressed concerns about the respondent’s motivations, suggesting the attempt to secure administration in British Columbia might be a collateral attack due to frustrations with the Philippine proceedings. Emphasizing international comity, the court highlighted the need to respect foreign judicial processes and avoid parallel proceedings, which could lead to conflicting orders and undermine judicial integrity.[14]

Decision:

The Court ultimately also ordered, the respondent’s removal as trustee of the estate, and for delivery of all estate-related documents, including tax, insurance, and financial information, to the applicant’s counsel within 30 days, and certified copies of the B.C. Estate Grant and letters of administration to be provided within 7 days. Additionally, the respondent was ordered to notify all relevant parties of the revocation of the B.C. Estate Grant and his removal as personal representative within 14 days, providing proof of this notification to the applicant.

The applicant was entirely successful in this application and as such, entitled to costs of the application to be payable personally by the respondent and for the respondent not to be reimbursed from the Estate for his legal fees.

Concluding Comments:

In conclusion, the court’s decision to revoke the estate administration grant underscores the importance of adhering to legal requirements and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. By refusing to appoint a substitute administrator, the court recognized the primary jurisdiction of the Philippines in managing the estate’s assets, thereby respecting international legal proceedings and avoiding conflicting orders. This case highlights the necessity for transparency and full disclosure in legal applications, as well as the significance of international comity in cross-border estate matters. The outcome serves as a reminder of the legal system’s commitment to ensuring that all parties are held accountable to the highest standards.

—

[1] Barretto Estate (Re), 2025 BCSC 239 (CanLII), at para 1, <https://canlii.ca/t/k9lml#par1>

[2] Barretto Estate (Re), 2025 BCSC 239 (CanLII), at para 9, <https://canlii.ca/t/k9lml#par9>

[3] Barretto Estate (Re), 2025 BCSC 239 (CanLII), at para 12, <https://canlii.ca/t/k9lml#par12>

[4] Barretto Estate (Re), 2025 BCSC 239 (CanLII), at para 14, <https://canlii.ca/t/k9lml#par14>

[5] Barretto Estate (Re), 2025 BCSC 239 (CanLII), at para 16, <https://canlii.ca/t/k9lml#par16>

[6] Barretto Estate (Re), 2025 BCSC 239 (CanLII), at para 19, <https://canlii.ca/t/k9lml#par19>

[7] Narsaiya Estate (Re), 2023 BCSC 1350 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jzhmn>

[8] Desbiens v. Smith, 2010 BCCA 394 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/2cfrx>

[9] Desbiens v. Smith, 2010 BCCA 394 (CanLII), at para 62, <https://canlii.ca/t/2cfrx#par62>

[10] Wills, Estates and Succession Act, SBC 2009, c 13, s 121, <https://canlii.ca/t/8mhj#sec121>

[11] Barretto Estate (Re), 2025 BCSC 239 (CanLII), at para 26, <https://canlii.ca/t/k9lml#par26>

[12] Barretto Estate (Re), 2025 BCSC 239 (CanLII), at para 31, <https://canlii.ca/t/k9lml#par31>

[13] Wills, Estates and Succession Act, SBC 2009, c 13, s 159, <https://canlii.ca/t/8mhj#sec159>

[14] Barretto Estate (Re), 2025 BCSC 239 (CanLII), at para 41, <https://canlii.ca/t/k9lml#par41>