VENTURA v Gregoria VENTURA
LOWER COURT ORDERED: (1) denied the suspension of proceedings and deferred the
What are the rules for appointment and removal of executor or administrator?
FACTS:
1. APPELLANT - Maria Ventura is the illegaltimate daughter of the deceased Gregorio
Ventura. Miguel Ventura and Juana Cardona are Gregorio’s son and spouse, who are also
the brother and mother of Maria.
2. APPELLEES - Mercedes and Gregoria Ventura are the legitimate children of Gregorio
with his former wife, late Paulina, but their paternity was denied by the deceased in his
will
3. On Dec 14, 1953 - Gregorio file a petition for the probate of his will which did not
include the appellees. Gregorio appointed Maria as the executrix of his will and
administratrix of the estate
4. The will was admitted to probate -> Gregorio then died
5. Maria filed a motion for her appoint as executrix and for the issuance of letters
testamentary in her favour - > she was then appointed and letters were issued in her
favour
6. Maria then submitted an inventory of the estate of Gregorio - > then, she filed he
accounts of administration for the years 1955 - 1960
7. Account of administration was opposed by Mercedes + Hubby and Gregoria + hubby.
They assail the that the income in the report does not reflect the true income.
8. Maria filed a motion to hold in abeyance the approval of the accounts or to have their
approval without the opposition of the spouses Mercedes and Gregoria on the ground that
the question of the paternity of Mercedes and Gregoria is still pending before the SC. If
they are judged to be adulterous children - they have no claim.
9. Mercedes et al. were against the abeyance because CFI already declared them legitimate
children.
10. Motion to hold in abeyance was denied
11. On July 12,1963 - Court set the case fo pre-trial in connection with the accounts of the
executrix Maria and the motion to annul provision of will dated july 12, 1962 of
Mercedes
12. Oct 22, 1963 - Mercedes et al filled 4 motions: (1) to remove maria was executrix (2) to
require maria to deposit the harvest play of the property under administration in a bonded
warehouse; (3) to render an accounting of the proceeds and expenses of the property and
(4) to require maria to include in the inventory of the estate certain excluded properties
13. Juana and Miguel apposed the motions
14. Gregoria and hubby filed a joint motion requiring maria an up-to-date accounting and to
include excluded properties in her inventory.
15. Ground of joint motions (haters): (1) Maria is grossly incompetent; (2) Maliciously &
purposely concealed properties of the estate; (3) she is an illegitimate daughter; (4)
neglected to render her accounts and failed to comply with the order of the court; (5) she
has a permanent physical defect hindering her from efficiently performing her duties as
an executrix.
16. On May 17, 1965 - Maria submitted her accounts of administration covering the period of
1961 to 1965 -> opposed by Mercedes et al.
17. Maria filed her supplemental opposition to the 4 motions and prayed that the joint
supplemental motion to remove her as executrix be denied or held in abeyance while the
status of Mercedes and Gregoria as heirs is finally decided
18. Court found that the estate taxes have not yet been paid, ordered the administratrix to pay
the same in 30 days
19.
resolution of the joint motion to remove maria as executrix until after the examination of
the physical fitness of said executrix to undertake her duties. (2) to deposit the play
harvested in the next agri year and subsequent years in a bonded warehouse.
20. Gregoria and hubby filed their opposition to the accounts of administration of Maria,
while Mercedes and hubby filed oppositions alleging that said accounts do not reflect the
true and actual income of the estate and that the expenses reported are fake, exhobitant
and speculative.
21. LOWER COURT found that Maria has squandered the funds of the estate, was inefficient
and incompetent, has failed to comply with the orders of the court in the matter of
presenting up-to-date statements of accounts and neglected to pay the real estate taxes
ISSUE: whether or not the removal of Maria Ventura as executrix is legally justified?
HELD:
• This issue has become moot and academic due to SC decision in related cases
• There are two other Civil cases filed: first is by Gregoria claiming that they are legitimate
children of Gregorio; second is filed by relatives of Paulina claiming that paulina did not
have children with gregorio but with some one else and that gregoria should not be awarded
the estate of paulina.
• Lower Court declared that Mercedes and Gregoria to be legitimate daughters ordering
Maria to pay them their inheritance etc.
• Mercedes filed a motion to annul the provisions of the will of the deceased gregorio ->
opposed by miguel and Juana
• Lower court annulled the institution of the heirs in the probated will fo gregorio ->
Maria filed MR
• Maria appealed the orders of the probate court before the SC
• SC ruled that Mercedes and Gregoria are legitimate children and are entitled to
annulment of the institution of heirs made in the probated will.
• Under Art 854 - the pretention or omission of one, some, or all of the compulsory heirs in
the direct line, whether living at the time of the execution of the will or born after the death
of the testator, shall annul the institution of heir; but the devises and legacies shall be valid
insofar as they are not inofficious,
• Appointment of Maria as executrix is moot
• There would be a need to appoint another administrator under the following provision
• Sec 6 of Rule 78
• When and to whom letters of administration granted.-If no executor is named in
the will, or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to
give bond, or a person dies intestate, a petition shall be granted:
• (a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be or next of kin, or both,
in the discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife,
or both, in the discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband
or wife, or next of kin, requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to
serve;”
• In short, when no executor was appointed - next of kin
• In this case, Juana is the next of kin of gregorio then mercers and Gregoria being legitimate
children.
• Generally: the nearest of kin, whose interest in the estate is more preponderant, is
preferred in the choice of administrator. 'Among members of a class the strongest ground
for preference is the amount or preponderance of interest. As between next of kin, the
nearest of kin is to be preferred.”
• THUS, Maria should not be the executrix nor the administratrix.