Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Geraldine Quimosing-Tiu) 1
COMPILATION OF CASES
MALOLES v. PHILLIPS In his Comment,6 respondent admitted that he did act as attorney-in-
fact for his uncle Florencio A. Barot7 and represented the latter in
DARAB Cases Nos. 464, 524 to 542-Cag-1997 for Annulment of
XXX
Emancipation Patents Nos. A-2000750 to A-2000769, filed by
Florencio Barot against Dominador Ramos, among others. In a
LEVISTE v. CA
decision8dated December 8, 1997, the Regional Adjudicator
rendered judgment in favor of Florencio Barot and ordered the
XXX cancellation of the Certificates of Land Transfer and the
Emancipation Patents issued in favor of Dominador Ramos and his
SAN LUIS v. SAN LUIS co-defendants therein.
XXX
Respondent, however, denied any participation in the alleged
unauthorized harvesting of the rice crops claimed by herein
WHO MAY BE APPOINTED
complainant. According to respondent, the administrative complaint
RAMOS v. JUDGE BAROT filed against him was nothing more than a cheap stunt and a
fabrication instigated by one Atty. Edgar Orro, who had a grudge
against the Barot family. Respondent claimed that the complainant
SECOND DIVISION was merely being utilized as a willing tool of Atty. Orro to ruin
respondent's reputation.9
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1338 January 21, 2004
In a resolution10 dated March 5, 2001, we referred the matter to
ROGELIO R. RAMOS, Complainant, Executive Judge Antonio Laggui of the Regional Trial Court of
vs. Aparri, Cagayan for investigation, report and recommendation. The
JUDGE EUSEBIO M. BAROT, Presiding Judge, 8th Municipal investigating judge required the parties to submit their respective
Circuit Trial Court, Branch 2, Aparri-Calayan, position papers but only the respondent complied.
Cagayan, Respondent.
In his position paper,11 respondent contended that he did not violate
Rules 2.0112 and 2.03,13 Canon 214 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
and was not guilty of grave misconduct as the acts imputed to him
were not related to or connected with the performance of his official
RESOLUTION
functions and duties as a member of the judiciary. Instead, he said
those acts had to do with the proper execution of his responsibilities
QUISUMBING, J.: and obligations as a private individual, i.e., as attorney-in-fact of his
late uncle, Florencio Barot. Furthermore, he stated that two cases
For resolution is the complaint1 dated March 26, 1999, filed before for theft filed by complainant against him were dismissed by the
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), charging respondent Regional State Prosecutor of Region 2, and they only served to
Judge Eusebio M. Barot, Presiding Judge, 8th Municipal Circuit Trial show his innocence of the acts imputed against him. 15
Court of Aparri-Calayan, Cagayan, Branch 2, of (a) violations of the
Code of Judicial Conduct and (b) Grave Misconduct. On September 28, 2001, the investigating judge rendered his report
and recommendation,16 which was received by the Office of the
Attached to the complaint was a supporting joint affidavit, 2 executed Court Administrator on October 10, 2001. Judge Laggui found that
by complainant Rogelio R. Ramos together with one Dominador C. respondent had violated Rule 5.06,17 Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial
Ramos, alleging that they are the owners, possessors and Conduct.18 Judge Laggui held that while it is true that the acts
cultivators of two parcels of land located in Gabun, Lasam, complained of were not related to respondent's judicial functions, it
Cagayan. These parcels are covered by Transfer Certificates of Title does not follow that a judge cannot be administratively charged for
Nos. 17902-03. Affiants further claim that they likewise cultivated acts of a private character. He recommended that respondent be
another parcel of land registered in the name of one Romeo Ramos ordered to pay a fine of ₱2,000.00, with a warning that a repetition of
and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 17904. These three the same shall be dealt with more severely. However, he exonerated
parcels of land, according to complainant, formerly formed part of respondent judge of the charge of Grave Misconduct for lack of
the Estate of Florencio Barut3 but were later covered by merit.
Emancipation Patents issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR). On August 8, 2000, the OCA affirmed the findings of Judge Laggui,
but recommended that the fine be increased to ₱3,000.00.19
According to the complaint, on February 26, 1997, certain individuals
entered their rice fields and, without authority, harvested the The findings and recommendations of the OCA, based on the report
standing rice crops, upon the unlawful orders of one Atty. Nuelino B. of Executive Judge Laggui, are well taken.1âwphi1That respondent
Ranchez and respondent judge. Complainant further averred that violated Rule 5.06, Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct is
respondent judge acted as attorney-in-fact for Florencio Barot (now patent. Respondent himself admitted that he acted as one of the
deceased), who was also a claimant to the aforesaid lots, as per attorneys-in-fact for his paternal uncle, Florencio Barot, whom he
also represented in DARAB Case No. II-464-Cag. 97. In his position
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (Atty. Geraldine Quimosing-Tiu) 2
COMPILATION OF CASES
paper, respondent likewise admitted that he continues to act as himself abreast of the responsibilities of a judge. For this alone, he
attorney-in-fact for the children of his deceased uncle. 20 Pursuant to deserves to be sanctioned.
his authority as such attorney-in-fact, he entered into two
compromise agreements relating to the aforesaid DARAB case. WHEREFORE, respondent Hon. EUSEBIO M. BAROT, Presiding
Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Branch 2, Aparri-Calayan,
Being and serving as an attorney-in-fact is within the purview of Cagayan is found LIABLE for violation of Rule 5.06, Canon 5 of the
"other fiduciary" as used in Rule 5.06. As a noun, "fiduciary" means Code of Judicial Conduct. He is hereby ORDERED to pay, as
"a person holding the character of a trustee, or a character recommended by OCA, a FINE of ₱3,000.00, with a STERN
analogous to that of a trustee, in respect to the trust and confidence WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be
involved in it and the scrupulous good faith and candor which it dealt with more severely. The charge for GRAVE MISCONDUCT is
requires."21 A fiduciary primarily acts for another's benefit, pursuant DISMISSED for lack of merit.
to his undertaking as such fiduciary, in matters connected with said
undertaking. When respondent acted as attorney-in-fact for his SO ORDERED.
uncle, Florencio Barot, he likewise undertook to perform all acts
necessary to protect the latter's interests. These would include
attending scheduled hearings in the DARAB case, among others, as ORDER OF PREFERENCE
pointed out by OCA. The possibility of a scheduled hearing for the
BALUYUT v. CRUZ-PANO
DARAB case conflicting with his own calendared hearings in his sala
is not altogether far-fetched. But far worse is the possibility that
respondent's official position and stature might have affected the Republic of the Philippines
outcome of the DARAB case. SUPREME COURT
Manila
Respondent gives as an excuse the fact that since he attended only
one hearing in the DARAB case, particularly the pre-trial conference, SECOND DIVISION
he could not have peddled any influence, either as a member of the
Bar or of the Judiciary. However, it goes without saying that a judge
G.R. No. L-42088 May 7, 1976
holds a position in the community that is looked up to with honor and
privilege. For this vantaged position, an exacting price is imposed,
for judges to comport themselves in a manner beyond suspicion or ALFREDO G. BALUYUT, petitioner,
reproach. A judge's private actuations come under scrutiny as much vs.
as his public functions, for the citizenry hardly makes a distinction HON. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO, ENCARNACION LOPEZ VDA. DE
between them. BALUYUT, JOSE ESPINO and CORAZON ESPINO, respondents.
The Code of Judicial Conduct lays down the guidelines with respect Mary Concepcion-Bautista for petitioner.
to fiduciary activities that judges may engage in. The thin line
between what is allowed and what is not allowed is set forth in Rule Santiago, Salunat and Agbayani for respondent Encarnacion Lopez
5.06, and therein made very specific. As a general rule, judges Vda. de Baluyut.
cannot serve as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or other
fiduciary, except if he acts in a fiduciary capacity for the estate, trust
or person of a member of his immediate family. The Code defines
"immediate family" as being limited to the spouse and relatives
within the second degree of consanguinity. Clearly, respondent's AQUINO, J.:
paternal uncle does not fall under "immediate family" as herein
defined. Hence, his appointment as attorney-in-fact for his uncle is Sotero Baluyut died in Manila on January 6, 1975 at the age of
not a valid exception to the rule. As we have held in Carual vs. eighty-six, leaving an estate allegedly valued at not less than two
Brusola:22 million pesos.
The Code does not qualify the prohibition. The intent of the rule is to A few weeks later, or on February 20, his nephew, Alfredo G.
limit a judge's involvement in the affairs and interests of private Baluyut, filed in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City a verified
individuals to minimize the risk of conflict with his judicial duties and petition for letters of administration. He alleged that the deceased
to allow him to devote his undivided attention to the performance of was survived by his widow, Encarnacion Lopez, who was mentally
his official functions. incapable of acting as administratrix of the decedent's estate.
Alfredo surmised that the decedent had executed a will. He prayed
Needless to say, the Code of Judicial Conduct has the force and that he be appointed regular administrator and in the meantime as
effect of law. The Code itself provides that judges are enjoined to special administrator.
strictly comply with its provisions.23 Otherwise, a judge may arrogate
upon himself the discretion of determining when he may or may not The lower court in its order of February 24, 1975 appointed Alfredo
act in a fiduciary capacity. G. Baluyut as special administrator with a bond of P100,000.
In this case, respondent should have been more circumspect in Mrs. Baluyut in her verified opposition of March 8, 1975 alleged that
accepting the appointment as an attorney-in-fact for his paternal she was unaware that her deceased husband executed a will. She
uncle. A judge is expected to be knowledgeable about current laws characterized as libelous the allegation as to her mental incapacity.
and jurisprudence. But more than that, he is also expected to know, She prayed that she be named administratrix and that the
in significant detail, the ethical rules that govern judicial conduct, appointment of Alfredo G. Baluyut as special administrator be set
both in public and private affairs. He should know, or should have aside.
known, the prohibition embodied in the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Respondent's failure to do so shows a lack of diligence to keep
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (Atty. Geraldine Quimosing-Tiu) 3
COMPILATION OF CASES
The lower court in its order of March 24, 1975 cancelled Baluyut's Court: You want to ask more questions Attorney?
appointment as special administrator. In that same order the lower
court noted that after asking Mrs. Baluyut a series of questions while Atty. Salunat: Just a few clarificatory questions, your Honor.
on the witness stand, it found that she "is healthy and mentally
qualified".
Q. Do you know Gov. Espino? — A. Yes.
On November 12, 1975 Mrs. Baluyut filed an urgent motion praying Atty. Salunat: I think that would be all, your Honor.
that she be appointed administratrix. She reasoned out that Alfredo
G. Baluyut had no more interest in the decedent's estate because as Court: Submitted?
a collateral relative he was excluded by Espino and other supposed
descendants of the deceased who had intervened in the proceeding,
and, therefore, it was not necessary to continue with the reception of Atty. Salunat: We will ask the Court to (be allowed to) submit a
rejoinder, your Honor.
his evidence.
Alfredo G. Baluyut opposed the urgent motion. He alleged that The probate court in its order of November 27, 1975 terminated the
appointments of Espino and Alfredo G. Baluyut as special
Espino was not a natural child of Sotero Baluyut because Espino's
administrators and appointed Mrs. Baluyut as regular administratrix
parents were the spouses Elino Espino and Josefa de Guzman.
with a bond of P20,000. The order was based on the fact that as
Alfredo further alleged that Mrs. Baluyut was declared an
surviving spouse she has a preferential right to be appointed as
incompetent by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of
administratrix of her deceased husband's estate and that she is
Quezon City in its order of September 25, 1975 in Special
Proceeding No. QC-00939 for the guardianship of Mrs. Baluyut. That entitled to three-fourths of the conjugal estate: one-half in her own
right and one-fourth as heir of the deceased. The lower court said it
proceeding was instituted by her sisters, Cristeta Lopez Vda. de
Cuesta and Guadalupe Lopez-Viray. was convinced of the widow's capacity and that her "sufficient
understanding" justified her appointment.
Court: We want also to hear her testimony. On December 13, 1975 Alfredo G. Baluyut filed against respondent
Judge, Mrs. Baluyut and the Espino spouses this special civil action
of certiorari in order to set aside the order of November 27
xxx xxx xxx appointing Mrs. Baluyut as administratrix.
Atty. Salunat: We are now therefore presenting the widow, your This court issued a restraining order enjoining the respondents from
Honor, to take the witness stand for examination by the court. enforcing the order of November 27 and from disposing of the funds
or assets of the estate in their possession or deposited in certain
xxx xxx xxx banks.
Court to witness: Can you testify in English?-No, your Honor, The Espino's in their comment alleged that Alfredo G. Baluyut is
Pampango. aware that Jose Espino was acknowledged in a notarial instrument
by Sotero Baluyut as his natural child.
Q. Ilocano? — A. No, your Honor.
Mrs. Baluyut in her comment alleged that Alfredo G. Baluyut
Atty. Salunat: She can testify in Tagalog your Honor, which instituted the administration proceeding after he had failed to get
comprehensible. from her a cheek for P500,000 belonging to the decedent's estate
and that he grossly misrepresented that she was mentally
incompetent. She further alleged that the order of the Juvenile and
Court: Your remember when you were born, Mrs. Baluyut? — A. Domestic Relations Court declaring her an incompetent was issued
March 25, 1901. in a blitzkrieg manner because it was based on the report of Doctor
Lourdes V. Lapuz which was filed in court just one day before the
Q. Where did you graduate? — Madres Dominicas. order was issued.
Q. When did you get married to Sec. Baluyut? — A. I cannot Mrs. Baluyut's main contention is that it is the probate court and not
remember the date but this was in Lingayen. the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court that should decide the
issue as to her competency to act as administratrix.
Q. What church? — A. A Catholic.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (Atty. Geraldine Quimosing-Tiu) 4
COMPILATION OF CASES
Alfredo G. Baluyut in his manifestation of February 2, 1976 disclosed The lower court departed from the usual course of probate
that Sotero Baluyut executed a notarial will on April 14, 1973. In that procedure in summarily appointing Mrs. Baluyut as administratrix on
will he bequeathed to Mrs. Baluyut his one-half share in certain the assumption that Alfredo G. Baluyut was not an interested party.
conjugal assets and one-fourth of the residue of his estate. The That irregularity became more pronounced after Alfredo G. Baluyut's
remaining three-fourths were bequeated to his collateral relatives revelation that the decedent had executed a will. He anticipated that
named Irene, Erlinda, Estrellita, Eliseo and Alfredo, all surnamed development when he articulated in his petition his belief that Sotero
Baluyut, and Emerita, Emilio and Benjamin, all surnamed Miranda. Baluyut executed wills which should be delivered to the court for
The testator designated Mrs. Baluyut as executrix. Espino is not probate.
mentioned in that will.
Certiorari lies when a grave abuse of discretion was patently
In this Court's resolution of May 7, 1976 respondents' comments committed by the lower court or if the petitioner's contention is
were treated as their answers. The case was deemed submitted for clearly tenable or when the broader interests of justice or public
decision. policy justify the nullification of the questioned order (Manila Electric
Company and Sheriff of Quezon City vs. Hon. Enriquez and
The issue is whether the lower court acted with grave abuse of Espinosa, 110 Phil. 499, 503; Pacheco vs. Tumangday and
discretion in appointing Mrs. Baluyut as administratrix. Fernando, 108 Phil. 238; Raneses vs. Teves, L-26854, March 4,
1976).
We hold that while the probate court correctly assumed that Mrs.
Baluyut as surviving spouse enjoys preference in the granting of Before closing, a pending incident herein should be resolved.
letters of administration (Sec. 6[a), Rule 78, Rules of Court), it does Alfredo G. Baluyut in his motion of January 15, 1976 prayed that
not follow that she should be named administratrix without respondent Judge be enjoined from acting on Mrs. Baluyut's motion
conducting a full-dress hearing on her competency to discharge that for the appointment of Espino as special administrator. In view of
trust. Alfredo G. Baluyut's manifestation of
Even the directive of the testator in his will designating that a certain April 2, 1976 that his motion had become moot, the same is hereby
person should act as executor is not binding on the probate court denied.
and does not automatically entitle him to the issuance of letters
testamentary. A hearing has to be held in order to ascertain his WHEREFORE, the lower court's order of November 27, 1975
fitness to act as executor. He might have been fit to act as executor appointing Mrs. Baluyut as administratrix is set aside. The letters of
when the will was executed but supervening circumstances might administration granted to her are cancelled. The probate court is
have rendered him unfit for that position. directed to conduct further proceedings in consonance with the
guidelines delineated in this decision. Costs against respondent Mrs.
Thus, it was held that a hearing is necessary in order to determine Baluyut.
the suitability of the person to be appointed administrator by giving
him the opportunity to prove his qualifications and affording SO ORDERED.
oppositors a chance to contest the petition (Matute vs. Court of
Appeals, L-26106, January 31, 1969, 26 SCRA 768, 791).
This is a petition for certiorari filed against the respondent judge of There is nothing wrong in that the respondent judge, in exercising
the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. his discretion and appointing the petitioner as special administratrix,
had taken into consideration the beneficial interest of the petitioner
The facts in this case may be summarily stated as follows: Pablo M. in the estate of the decedent and her being designated in the will as
Roxas died leaving properties in Bulacan. The other respondents executrix thereof. But the respondent's subsequent act of appointing
Maria and Pedro Roxas, sister and brother respectively of the her as special administratrix only of the conjugal or community
deceased, filed on August 3, 1946, a petition for the administration property, and Maria Roxas as special administratrix of the capital or
of the latter's estate, in special intestate proceeding No. 1707 of the exclusive property of the decedent, does not seem to be in
Court of First Instance of Bulacan, and Maria Roxas was appointed conformity with logic or reason. The petitioner has or claims to have
special administratrix upon an ex-parte petition. On August 10, 1946, the same beneficial interest after the decision of the court
the petitioner Natividad Vda. de Roxas, widow of Pablo M. Roxas, disapproving the will, which is now pending on appeal, as she had
filed a petition for the probate of an alleged will of her deceased prior to it, because the decision is not yet final and may be reversed
husband, and for her appointment as executrix of his estate by the appellate court.
designated is said will, and the petition was docketed as special
proceeding No. 172 of the same court. In said will the deceased Besides, even if the will is not probated, the widow in the present
bequeathed one-half of his estate to his widow, the herein petitioner, case would have, under the law, the right of usufruct over one-half of
and the other half to Reynaldo Roxas, an adulterous child 9 years the exclusive property of the decedent, besides her share in the
old of the decedent. Upon agreement of both parties, the intestate conjugal partnership. The beneficial interest required as a
proceeding No. 170 was dismissed and ordered closed by the court. qualification for appointment as administrator of the estate of a
decedent is the interest in the whole estate and not only in some
In view of the opposition to the probate of the will by the respondents part thereof. The petitioner being entitled to one-half in usufruct of all
Maria and Pedro Roxas, the petitioner was appointed on September the exclusive properties of the decedent, she would have as much if
10, 1946, special administratrix and qualified as such over the not more interest in administering the entire estate correctly, in order
objection of the respondents Maria and Pedro Roxas, who sought to reap the benefit of a wise, speedy, economical administration of
the appointment of Maria as such. The said respondents filed on the state, and not suffer the consequences of the waste,
October 21, 1946, a motion for reconsideration of the order of the improvidence or mismanagement thereof. The good or bad
court appointing the petitioner as special administratrix, with an administration of the property may affect rather the fruits than the
alternative prayer that Maria Roxas be appointed as special co- naked ownership of a property.
administratrix, which motion was not acted upon.
However, for the decision of the question involved in this proceeding
After hearing on December 15, 1947, the respondent judge rendered it is not necessary for us to determine whether or not the respondent
a decision denying the probate of the will presented by the petitioner judge has acted with grave abuse of discretion in rendering the
on the ground that the attesting witnesses did not sign their resolution complained of for the reasons just stated, in view of our
respective names in the presence of the testator, from which the conclusion that the respondent judge acted in excess of the court's
petitioner has appealed, and the appeal is now pending. jurisdiction in appointing two separate special administratices of the
estate of the decedent: one of the conjugal or community property
and another of the capital or exclusive property of the deceased
On December 29, 1947, the respondents Maria and Pedro Roxas
Pablo M. Roxas.
renewed their petition for the appointment of Maria Roxas as special
administratrix or special co-administratrix, and on May 5, 1948, the
respondent judge rendered his resolution appointing the petitioner According to section 2, Rule 75, taken from section 685 of the
Natividad I. Vda. de Roxas as special administratrix only of all the former Code of Civil Procedure, Act No. 190, as amended, "when
conjugal properties of the deceased, and Maria Roxas as special the marriage is dissolved by the death of the husband or wife, the
community property shall be inventoried, administered, and
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (Atty. Geraldine Quimosing-Tiu) 6
COMPILATION OF CASES
DECISION
There is absolutely no reason for appointing two separate
administrators, specially if the estate to be settled is that of a
deceased husband as in the present case, for according to articles YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
1422 and 1423 of the Civil Code, only after the dowry and
parapherna of the wife and the debts, charges, and obligations of Petitioner assails the August 20, 2004 Decision of the Court of
the conjugal partnership have been paid, the capital or exclusive Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 72678,1 affirming the January 22, 2002
property of the husband may be liquidated and paid in so far as the Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52 of Bacolod City in
inventoried estate may reach; and if the estate inventoried should Special Proceedings No. 97-241,2as well as the April 29, 2005
not be sufficient to pay the dowry and the parapherna of the wife and Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration.3
the debts, charges and obligations of the partnership, the provision
of Title XVII of the Civil Code relating to concurrence and preference
The facts of the case show that Jose K.C. Uy (Deceased) died
of credits shall be observed. If two separate administrators are
intestate on August 20, 1996 and is survived by his spouse, Sy Iok
appointed as done in the present case, in every action which one of
Ing Uy, and his five children, namely, Lilian S. Uy, Lilly S. Uy, Livian
them may institute to recover properties or credit of the deceased,
S. Uy-Garcia , Lilen S. Uy and Wilson S. Uy (Petitioner).
the defendant may raise the question or set up the defense that the
plaintiff has no cause of action, because the property or credit in
issue belongs to the class which is being administered by the other On February 18, 1997, Special Proceedings No. 97-241 was
administrator, which can not be done if the administrator of the entire instituted and Lilia Hofileña was appointed as special administrator
estate is only one. of the estate of the deceased. Petitioner moved to reconsider the
order appointing Lilia Hofileña as special administrator with prayer
that letters of administration be issued to him instead. 4
As under the law only one general administrator may be appointed
to administer, liquidate and distribute the estate of a deceased
spouse, it clearly follows that only one special administrator may be On June 9, 1998, Judge Ramon B. Posadas revoked Lilia Hofileña’s
appointed to administer temporarily said estate, because a special appointment as special administrator and denied her petition to be
administrator is but a temporary administrator who is appointed to appointed as regular administrator. Meanwhile, letters of
act in lieu of the general administrator. "When there is delay in administration were granted to petitioner, who took his oath of office
granting letters testamentary or of administration occasioned by an as administrator on June 23, 1998.
appeal from the allowance or disallowance of will, or from any other
cause, the court may appoint a special administrator to collect and On February 17, 1999, Johnny K. H. Uy (Private Respondent) filed a
take charge of the estate of the deceased until the questions motion to intervene, praying that he be appointed as administrator of
causing the delay are decided and executors or administrators the estate in lieu of petitioner. He alleged that he is the brother and a
thereupon appointed," (sec. 1, Rule 81). Although his powers and creditor of the deceased, and has knowledge of the properties that
duties are limited to "collect and take charge of the goods, chattels, should be included in the estate.
rights, credits, and estate of the deceased and preserve the same
for the executor or administrator afterwards appointed, and for that
The trial court initially denied private respondent’s motion to
purpose may commence and maintain suits as administrator, and
intervene,5 but on March 16, 2000,6 it reconsidered its earlier order
may sell such perishable and other property as the court orders sold.
and appointed private respondent as co-administrator of the estate.
A special administrator shall not be liable to pay any debts of the
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
deceased." (Section 2, Rule 81.)lawphil.net
Petitioner then moved that private respondent bring into the estate
In view of all the foregoing, we hold that the court below has no
properties belonging to the deceased, which motion was granted by
power to appoint two special administratices of the estate of a
the trial court. Not satisfied with the compliance of private
deceased husband or wife, one of the community property and
respondent, petitioner reiterated his motion for removal of the former
another of the exclusive property of the decedent, and therefore the
as co-administrator, but the same was denied.
respondent judge acted in excess of the court's jurisdiction in
rendering or issuing the order complained of, and therefore said
order is hereby set aside, with costs against the respondents. So The trial court found that private respondent substantially complied
ordered. with the order directing him to bring into the estate properties owned
by or registered in the name of the deceased not subject of any
adverse claim or controversy when he listed the alleged properties
suspected to be concealed, embezzled or conveyed away by the
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (Atty. Geraldine Quimosing-Tiu) 7
COMPILATION OF CASES
The Court of Appeals held that the refusal of the trial court to remove The main issues for resolution are: (1) whether the trial court acted
private respondent as co-administrator of the estate is neither an with grave abuse of discretion in appointing private respondent as
error of jurisdiction nor a grave abuse of discretion; that the co-administrator to the estate of the deceased; and (2) whether the
appointment of private respondent was justified; that the order of Court of Appeals deprived petitioner of his constitutional right to due
preference under Section 6 of Rule 78 of the Rules of Court does process and his right to petition the government for redress of
not rule out the appointment of co-administrators; that the institution grievances by not addressing the issues raised before it.
of a case for annulment of title and reconveyance against
respondent does not justify private respondent’s removal as co- The petition is without merit.
administrator.
(a) The main function of a probate court is to settle and liquidate the
estates of deceased persons either summarily or through the
ALIEN TO THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED, WITH VARIOUS process of administration.9 In the case at bar, the trial court granted
SERIOUS INTERESTS (ACTUAL JUDICIAL CONTROVERSIES) IN letters of administration to petitioner and thereafter to private
CONFLICT WITH THOSE OF THE ESTATE, AND respondent as co-administrator. Under Section 6, Rule 78 of the
Rules of Court, the preference to whom letters of administration may
(B) be granted are as follows:
WITH NO PROPER INTEREST IN THE ESTATE AND WHO IS SEC. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. – If no
PERSONALLY UNFIT, UNSUITABLE, UNWORTHY, executor is named in the will, or the executor or executors are
UNDESERVING OF THE TRUST INHERENT IN THE POSITION incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a person dies
OF CO-ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE, AND intestate, administration shall be granted:
UNACCEPTABLE AND REPULSIVE TO THE FAMILY OF THE
LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED; AND THEN REFUSING TO (a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of
REMOVE HIM AS CO-ADMINISTRATOR AFTER IT WAS SHOWN kin, or both, in the discretion of the court, or to such person as such
THAT HIS REPRESENTATIONS ON WHICH HE WAS APPOINTED surviving husband or wife, or next of kin, requests to have
CO-ADMINISTRATOR WERE EMPTY AND FALSE; AND appointed, if competent and willing to serve;
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS (b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of
DENIED PETITIONER HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE kin, or the person selected by them, be incompetent or unwilling, or
PROCESS OF LAW AND HIS RIGHT TO PETITION THE if the husband or widow, or next of kin, neglects for thirty (30) days
GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES BY NOT after the death of the person to apply for administration or to request
ADDRESSING AND RESOLVING THE ISSUES BROUGHT TO IT that administration be granted to some other person, it may be
BY THE PETITIONER, MORE ESPECIFICALLY THE ISSUES OF granted to one or more of the principal creditors, if competent and
willing to serve;
(1)
(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may
RES JUDICATA AND STABILITY OF THE JUDGMENT be granted to such other person as the court may select.
APPOINTING THE PETITIONER HEREIN AS JUDICIAL
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE IN QUESTION, AND The order of preference in the appointment of an administrator
depends on the attendant facts and circumstances. 10In Sioca v.
Garcia,11 this Court set aside the order of preference, to wit:
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (Atty. Geraldine Quimosing-Tiu) 8
COMPILATION OF CASES
It is well settled that a probate court cannot arbitrarily and without the instant case, the estate of the deceased has not yet been settled
sufficient reason disregard the preferential rights of the surviving and the case is still within the jurisdiction of the court.
spouse to the administration of the estate of the deceased
spouse. But, if the person enjoying such preferential rights is The foregoing discussion renders moot the second issue raised by
unsuitable, the court may appoint another person. The petitioner. We see no cogent reason to set aside the findings of the
determination of a person’s suitability for the office of administrator Court of Appeals, because its findings of fact is conclusive and
rests, to a great extent, in the sound judgment of the court exercising binding on the parties and not subject to review by this Court, unless
the power of appointment and such judgment will not be interfered the case falls under any of the exceptions to the rule.19
with on appeal unless it appears affirmatively that the court below
was in error.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The August 20, 2004
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 72678 affirming
x x x Unsuitableness may consist in adverse interest of some the January 22, 2002 Order of the Regional Trial Court in Special
kind or hostility to those immediately interested in the estate. x Proceedings No. 97-241, as well as the April 29, 2005 Resolution
x x.12 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) denying the motion for reconsideration are AFFIRMED.1avvphil.net
In the instant case, the order of preference was not disregarded by SO ORDERED.
the trial court. Instead of removing petitioner, it appointed private
respondent, a creditor, as co-administrator since the estate was
sizeable and petitioner was having a difficult time attending to it SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR
alone. In fact, petitioner did not submit any report regarding the
NATURE OF APPOINTMENT
estate under his administration. In its March 16, 2000 Order, 13 the
trial court found thus:
HEIRS OF CASTILLO v. GABRIEL
Going over all the arguments of the parties, after hearing has been
set relative thereto, this Court has observed that indeed the judicial Republic of the Philippines
administrator had not submitted to the Court any report about the SUPREME COURT
Estate under his administration except those involving the cases he
filed and/or intervened in other branches. This may be due to his SECOND DIVISION
being inexperienced, but this fact will not be reason enough to
remove him from the administration of the Estate as Judicial
G.R. No. 162934 November 11, 2005
Administrator thereof. However, considering that the Intervenor is
claiming to be the patriarch of the Uy family and who claims to have
enormous knowledge of the businesses and properties of the HEIRS OF BELINDA DAHLIA A. CASTILLO, namely, BENA
decedent Jose K.C. Uy, it is the feeling of this Court that it will be JEAN, DANIEL, MELCHOR, MICHAEL and DANIBEL, all
very beneficial to the Estate if he be appointed co-administrator surnamed CASTILLO, Petitioners,
(without removing the already appointed Judicial Administrator) of vs.
the Estate of Jose K.C. Uy, if only to shed more light to the alleged DOLORES LACUATA-GABRIEL, Respondent.
enormous properties/businesses and to bring them all to the
decedent’s Estate pending before this Court.14
Meantime, the marriage between Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel and heirs of Belinda, stating that they were "mere strangers to the case"
Lorenzo Almoradie was declared void for being bigamous. The RTC and that their cause could better be ventilated in a separate
then removed Lorenzo as administrator and appointed Mariano, Jr. proceeding. According to the trial court –
in his stead.5
Contrary to the assertions of Oppositors Heirs of Belinda A. Castillo,
On October 16, 1989, one Belinda Dahlia Y. Almoradie Castillo, movant Dolores L. Gabriel has amply proven her kinship with
claiming to be the only legitimate child of Lorenzo and Crisanta, filed petitioner Roberto Y. Gabriel, and therefore her kinship, by operation
a motion for intervention.6 Resolution on this motion was, however, of law, with decedent Crisanta Y. Gabriel. In the probate
held in abeyance pending some incidents in the CA. proceedings, this Court has the power to determine questions as to
who are the heirs of the decedent …, the recognition of a natural
On November 3, 1989, Roberto Y. Gabriel, the legally adopted son child …, the validity of disinheritance effected by the testator … and
of Crisanta Y. Gabriel, filed before the RTC of Malabon City a the status of a woman who claims to be the lawful wife of the
petition for probate of an alleged will and for the issuance of letters decedent. ...
testamentary in his favor. The petition was docketed as Spec. Proc.
No. 211-MN. 7 He alleged that he discovered his mother’s will on Guided by the foregoing precepts, this Court is of the opinion, and
October 25, 1989 in which he was instituted as the sole heir of the so holds, that movant Dolores L. Gabriel has established her claim
testatrix, and designated as alternate executor for the named that she is the lawfully wedded wife of petitioner Roberto Y. Gabriel
executor therein, Francisco S. Yanga, a brother of Crisanta, who and that the previous marriage between petitioner and one Lucita V.
had predeceased the latter sometime in 1985 or 1986. Cruz was already long dissolved prior to the celebration of marriage
between petitioner and movant Dolores L. Gabriel’s marriage in July
On June 2, 1990, Belinda Castillo died. 4, 1997.
The two (2) special proceedings were consolidated. On May 15, And even assuming that movant Dolores L. Gabriel’s lawful
1991, the RTC issued an Order dismissing the intestate relationship with petitioner, and corollarily with the decedent, was not
proceedings, Spec. Proc. No. 192-MN.8 Mariano Yanga, Jr. proven, the stringent rules regarding the order of preference in the
questioned the dismissal of the intestate proceedings before the appointment of an Administrator does not find application in the
appellate court via a petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 25897). instant case … for what is at stake here is the appointment of a
Special Administrator as such position was vacated by the death of
the previously appointed Special Administrator in the person of
On July 8, 1991, the probate court appointed Roberto Y. Gabriel as petitioner herein. The reason for the relaxation of the rules regarding
special administrator of his mother’s estate.9 the appointment of a Special Administrator is the nature of its
position, being merely temporary and will subsist only until a regular
On May 23, 2001, the heirs of Belinda, namely, Bena Jean, Daniel, administrator or executor is appointed.
Melchor, Michael, and Danibel, all surnamed Castillo, filed a
Motion10 praying that they be substituted as party-litigants in lieu of …
their late mother Belinda, who died in 1990.
On August 14, 2001, the heirs of Belinda opposed Dolores’ The heirs of Belinda moved to reconsider.19 In the meantime,
manifestation and motion. They averred that Dolores was not Dolores took her oath of office on January 11, 2002.20
Crisanta Gabriel’s next of kin, let alone the lawful wife of the late
Roberto.13 This elicited a Reply14 from Dolores where she refuted The probate court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by
these allegations. Belinda’s heirs in its Order21 dated March 19, 2002. The said heirs
then filed with the CA a petition for certiorari with prayer for a
On August 24, 2001, Bena Jean filed a "Motion for Appointment as temporary restraining order or/and preliminary injunction against
Administrator of the Estate of Crisanta Y. Gabriel" 15 praying that she Dolores and the probate court. The case was docketed as CA-G.R.
be appointed administratrix of the estate of her grandmother SP No. 70645. They prayed, among others, that Bena Jean be
Crisanta. appointed as the regular administratrix of Crisanta Gabriel’s estate,
thus –
2. After hearing and consideration, a writ of preliminary injunction be jurisprudence, the petitioners explain that the principal consideration
issued against respondent Dolores L. Gabriel to cease and desist in the appointment of administrator of a deceased person’s estate is
from acting as special administratrix of Crisanta Y. Gabriel until the applicant’s interest therein. This is the same consideration which
further order from this Honorable Court; Section 6,25 Rule 78 of the Rules of Court takes into account in
establishing the order of preference in the appointment of such
3. An Order be issued nullifying and setting aside the assailed administrators. The underlying assumption behind this rule, the
Orders dated December 5, 2001 and March 19, 2002 both issued by petitioners insist, is that those who will reap the benefit of a wise,
the respondent Judge for having been rendered with grave abuse of speedy, economical administration of the estate, or suffer the
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction and for this Honorable consequences of waste, improvidence or mismanagement, have the
Court to issue a new one by appointing petitioner Bena Jean A. highest interest and most influential motive to administer the estate
Castillo as regular administratrix of the estate of Crisanta Y. Gabriel. correctly. Lastly, the petitioners posit that since CA-G.R. SP No.
25897 had long been dismissed by the CA, a regular administrator
of the said estate should now be appointed.
Petitioner likewise prays for such other just, fair and equitable relief
under the premises.22
The petition is without merit.
Section 1, Rule 80 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: It is well settled that the statutory provisions as to the prior or
preferred right of certain persons to the appointment of administrator
Section 1. Appointment of Special Administrator. – When there is under Section 1, Rule 81, as well as the statutory provisions as to
delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration by any causes for removal of an executor or administrator under section
cause including an appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a 653 of Act No. 190, now Section 2, Rule 83, do not apply to the
will, the court may appoint a special administrator to take possession selection or removal of special administrator. ... As the law does not
and charge of the estate of the deceased until the questions causing say who shall be appointed as special administrator and the
the delay are decided and executors or administrators appointed. qualifications the appointee must have, the judge or court has
discretion in the selection of the person to be appointed, discretion
which must be sound, that is, not whimsical or contrary to reason,
The new Rules have broadened the basis for the appointment of an justice or equity.
administrator, and such appointment is allowed when there is delay
in granting letters testamentary or administration by any cause, e.g.,
parties cannot agree among themselves. Nevertheless, the On the plea of the petitioners for this Court to appoint their co-
discretion to appoint a special administrator or not lies in the probate petitioner, Bena Jean Castillo, as the regular administratrix of the
court.33In De Guzman v. Guadiz, Jr.,34 the Court further elucidated – estate of Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel, the matter should be addressed to
the probate court for its consideration. It is not for this Court to
preempt the discretion of the probate court and appoint a regular
Under the above rule, the probate court may appoint a special administrator in the present action.
administrator should there be a delay in granting letters
testamentary or of administration occasioned by any cause including
an appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a will. Subject to WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the
this qualification, the appointment of a special administrator lies in Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 70645, dated October 30, 2003,
the discretion of the Court. This discretion, however, must be sound, and its Resolution of March 26, 2004 are AFFIRMED. Costs against
that is, not whimsical, or contrary to reason, justice, equity or legal the petitioners.
principle.
SO ORDERED.
The basis for appointing a special administrator under the Rules is
broad enough to include any cause or reason for the delay in TAN v. GEDORIO
granting letters testamentary or of administration as where a contest
as to the will is being carried on in the same or in another court, or
Republic of the Philippines
where there is an appeal pending as to the proceeding on the
SUPREME COURT
removal of an executor or administrator, or in cases where the
Manila
parties cannot agree among themselves. Likewise, when from any
cause general administration cannot be immediately granted, a
special administrator may be appointed to collect and preserve the THIRD DIVISION
property of the deceased.
G.R. No. 166520 March 14, 2008
It is obvious that the phrase "by any cause" includes those incidents
which transpired in the instant case clearly showing that there is a VILMA C. TAN, GERARDO "JAKE" TAN and GERALDINE TAN,
delay in the probate of the will and that the granting of letters REPRESENTED BY EDUARDO NIERRAS,Petitioners,
testamentary will consequently be prolonged necessitating the vs.
immediate appointment of a special administrator.35 THE HON. FRANCISCO C. GEDORIO, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
As enunciated above, the probate court has ample jurisdiction to BRANCH 12, ORMOC CITY, ROGELIO LIM SUGA and HELEN
appoint respondent as special administratrix. The deceased Crisanta TAN RACOMA, REPRESENTED BY ROMUALDO
Yanga-Gabriel left a document purporting to be her will where her LIM, Respondents.
adopted son, Roberto, was named as the sole heir of all her
properties. However, pending probate of the will, Roberto died
leaving his widow, the respondent herein, as his sole heir. Thus, the
respondent has much stake in Crisanta’s estate in case the latter’s
DECISION
will is allowed probate. It needs to be emphasized that in the
appointment of a special administrator (which is but temporary and
subsists only until a regular administrator is appointed), the probate CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
court does not determine the shares in the decedent’s estate, but
merely appoints who is entitled to administer the estate. The issue of This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
heirship is one to be determined in the decree of distribution, and the of Court seeking the reversal of the Decision1dated 29 July 2004 of
findings of the court on the relationship of the parties in the the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 79335. The assailed
administration as to be the basis of distribution.36 Thus, the Decision of the Court of Appeals affirmed the Order2 dated 17 July
preference of respondent is sound, that is, not whimsical, or contrary 2003 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ormoc City in SP. PROC.
to reason, justice, equity or legal principle. No. 4014-0 denying reconsideration of its Order dated 12 June 2003
whereby it appointed Romualdo D. Lim as special administrator to
The petitioners’ strenuous invocation of Section 6, Rule 78 of the the estate of the late Gerardo Tan.
Rules of Court is misplaced. The rule refers to the appointment of
regular administrators of estates; Section 1, Rule 80, on the other The factual and procedural antecedents of this case are as follows:
hand, applies to the appointment of a special administrator. It has
long been settled that the appointment of special administrators is
Gerardo Tan (Gerardo) died on 14 October 2000, leaving no will. On
not governed by the rules regarding the appointment of regular
31 October 2001, private respondents, who are claiming to be the
administrators.37 Thus, in Roxas v. Pecson,38 this Court ruled:
children of Gerardo Tan, filed with the RTC a Petition for the
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (Atty. Geraldine Quimosing-Tiu) 12
COMPILATION OF CASES
issuance of letters of administration. The Petition was docketed as Petitioners instituted with the Court of Appeals a Petition
Special Proceeding No. 4014-0 and was raffled to Branch 12. for Certiorari and Prohibition assailing the 17 July 2003 Order, again
Petitioners, claiming to be legitimate heirs of Gerardo Tan, filed an insisting on petitioner Vilma’s right to be appointed as special
Opposition to the Petition. administratix. Petitioners likewise prayed for the issuance of
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order (TRO) to
Private respondents then moved for the appointment of a special enjoin Romualdo from entering the estate and acting as special
administrator, asserting the need for a special administrator to take administrator thereof.
possession and charge of Gerardo’s estate until the Petition can be
resolved by the RTC or until the appointment of a regular On 29 July 2004, the Court of Appeals issued a Decision denying
administrator. They prayed that their attorney-in-fact, Romualdo D. petitioners’ Petition. On 6 December 2004, the Court of Appeals
Lim (Romualdo), be appointed as the special administrator. similarly denied the ensuing Motion for Reconsideration filed by
Petitioners filed an Opposition to private respondents’ Motion for petitioners, to wit:
Appointment, arguing that none of the private respondents can be
appointed as the special administrator since they are not residing in WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing premises, judgment is
the country. Petitioners contend further that Romualdo does not hereby rendered by us DENYING and DISMISSING the petition filed
have the same familiarity, experience or competence as that of their in this case and AFFIRMING the assailed order in Special
co-petitioner Vilma C. Tan (Vilma) who was already acting as de Proceeding No. 4014-0.7
facto administratrix of his estate since his death.
Consequently, on 12 June 2003, RTC Judge Eric F. Menchavez Petitioners contend11 that they should be given priority in the
issued an Order4 appointing Romualdo as special administrator of administration of the estate since they are allegedly the legitimate
Gerardo’s Estate, the fallo of which states: heirs of the late Gerardo, as opposed to private respondents, who
are purportedly Gerardo’s illegitimate children. Petitioners rely on the
doctrine that generally, it is the nearest of kin, whose interest is more
Foregoing considered, the motion for the appointment of a special preponderant, who is preferred in the choice of administrator of the
administrator is hereby GRANTED. Mr. Romualdo D. Lim is hereby decedent’s estate.
appointed as Special Administrator and shall immediately take
possession and charge of the goods, chattels, rights, credits and
estate of the deceased and preserve the same for the executor or Petitioners also claim that they are more competent than private
administrator afterwards appointed, upon his filing of a bond in the respondents or their attorney-in-fact to administer Gerardo’s estate.
amount of ₱50,000.00 and upon approval of the same by this Court.5 Petitioners Vilma and Gerardo "Jake" Tan (Jake) claim to have lived
for a long time and continue to reside on Gerardo’s estate, while
respondents are not even in the Philippines, having long established
Petitioners filed on 19 June 2003 a Motion for Reconsideration of the residence abroad.
foregoing Order, claiming that petitioner Vilma should be the one
appointed as special administratix as she was allegedly next of kin
of the deceased. Petitioners additionally claim that petitioner Vilma has been acting as
the administratrix of the estate since Gerardo’s death on 14 October
2000 and is thus "well steeped in the actual management and
On 17 July 2003, respondent Judge Francisco Gedorio (Gedorio), in operation of the estate (which essentially consists of agricultural
his capacity as RTC Executive Judge, issued an Order6 denying landholdings)."12
petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.1avvphi1
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (Atty. Geraldine Quimosing-Tiu) 13
COMPILATION OF CASES
As regards the denial of petitioners’ plea for the issuance of a Writ of from the estate of the decedent. She was likewise directed to submit
Preliminary Injunction and/or TRO, petitioners argue that such denial a financial report as regards the background of the cash on hand, if
would leave Romualdo, private respondents’ attorney-in-fact, free to any, the expenses incurred in the course of her administration. The
enter Gerardo’s estate and proceed to act as administrator thereof to directive was issued by Atty. Nuevo on March 18, 2002 or more than
the prejudice of petitioners. a year ago. On May 23, 2003, this Court, acting on the urgent ex
parte motion to resolve pending incident, gave Vilma Tan another
The appeal is devoid of merit. ten days to comply with the directive of Atty. Nuevo. Again, no
compliance has been made.
(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may Furthermore, petitioners were not able to sufficiently substantiate
be granted to such other person as the court may select. their claim that their co-petitioner Vilma would have been the more
competent and capable choice to serve as the special administratrix
However, this Court has consistently ruled that the order of of Gerardo’s estate. Contrary to petitioners’ bare assertions, both the
preference in the appointment of a regular administrator as provided RTC and the Court of Appeals found that the documented failure of
in the afore-quoted provision does not apply to the selection of a petitioner Vilma to comply with the reportorial requirements after the
special administrator.13 The preference under Section 6, Rule 78 of lapse of a considerable length of time certainly militates against her
the Rules of Court for the next of kin refers to the appointment of a appointment.
regular administrator, and not of a special administrator, as
the appointment of the latter lies entirely in the discretion of the We find immaterial the fact that private respondents reside abroad,
court, and is not appealable.14 for the same cannot be said as regards their attorney-in-fact,
Romualdo, who is, after all, the person appointed by the RTC as
Not being appealable, the only remedy against the appointment of a special administrator. It is undisputed that Romualdo resides in the
special administrator is Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of country and can, thus, personally administer Gerardo’s estate.
Court, which was what petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals.
Certiorari, however, requires nothing less than grave abuse of If petitioners really desire to avail themselves of the order of
discretion, a term which implies such capricious and whimsical preference provided in Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, so
exercise of judgment which is equivalent to an excess or lack of that petitioner Vilma as the supposed next of kin of the late Gerardo
jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as may take over administration of Gerardo’s estate, they should
to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to already pursue the appointment of a regular administrator and put to
perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of an end the delay which necessitated the appointment of a special
law.15 administrator. The appointment of a special administrator is justified
only when there is delay in granting letters, testamentary (in case
We agree with the Court of Appeals that there was no grave abuse the decedent leaves behind a will) or administrative (in the event that
of discretion on the part of respondent Judge Gedorio in affirming the decedent leaves behind no will, as in the Petition at bar)
Judge Menchavez’s appointment of Romualdo as special occasioned by any cause.18 The principal object of the appointment
administrator. Judge Menchavez clearly considered petitioner Vilma of a temporary administrator is to preserve the estate until it can
for the position of special administratrix of Gerardo’s estate, but pass into the hands of a person fully authorized to administer it for
decided against her appointment for the following reasons: the benefit of creditors and heirs.19
Atty. Clinton C. Nuevo, in his capacity as court appointed In the case at bar, private respondents were constrained to move for
commissioner, directed oppositor Vilma Tan in the latter’s capacity the appointment of a special administrator due to the delay caused
as de fact[o] administratrix, to deposit in the fiduciary account of the by the failure of petitioner Vilma to comply with the directives of the
court all money and cash at hand or deposited in the banks which court-appointed commissioner. It would certainly be unjust if
rightfully belong to the estate within five days from receipt of the petitioner Vilma were still appointed special administratix, when the
directive. Oppositor Vilma Tan was likewise directed to deposit in the necessity of appointing one has been brought about by her defiance
same account the proceeds of all sugarcane harvest or any crop of the lawful orders of the RTC or its appointed officials. Petitioners
submit the defense that petitioner Vilma was unable to comply with
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS (Atty. Geraldine Quimosing-Tiu) 14
COMPILATION OF CASES
the directives of the RTC to deposit with the court the income of
Gerardo’s estate and to provide an accounting thereof because of
the fact that Gerardo’s estate had no income. This defense is clearly
specious and insufficient justification for petitioner Vilma’s non-
compliance. If the estate truly did not have any income, petitioners
should have simply filed a manifestation to that effect, instead of
continuing to disregard the court’s orders.
SO ORDERED.
DE ROXAS v. PECSON
XXX
CO-ADMINISTRATOR
UY v. CA
XXX
LETTERS TESTAMENTARY
MALOLES v. PHILLIPS
XXX
NITTSCHER v. NITTSCHER
XXX