Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lim as special
THIRD DIVISION administrator to the estate of the late Gerardo Tan.
Petitioners filed on 19 June 2003 a Motion for Reconsideration of the THE COURT OF APPEALS LIKEWISE ERRED IN DENYING
foregoing Order, claiming that petitioner Vilma should be the one appointed PETITIONERS PLEA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
as special administratix as she was allegedly next of kin of the deceased.
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND/OR A TEMPORARY
On 17 July 2003, respondent Judge Francisco Gedorio (Gedorio), in his RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
capacity as RTC Executive Judge, issued an Order[6] denying petitioners AND THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT.[8]
Motion for Reconsideration.
SEC. 6. When and to whom letters of administration
On 14 February 2005, this Court issued a Resolution[9] denying the granted.If no executor is named in the will, or the executor or
Petition on the ground of late filing, failure to submit an affidavit of service of a executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond,
copy of the Petition on the Court of Appeals and proof of such service, failure or a person dies intestate, administration shall be granted:
to properly verify the Petition, and failure to pay the deposit for the Salary
Adjustment for the Judiciary (SAJ) fund and sheriffs fee. Upon Motion for
Reconsideration filed by petitioners, however, this Court issued on 18 July (a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be,
2005 a Resolution[10] reinstating the Petition. or next of kin, or both, in the discretion of the court, or to such
person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of kin,
Petitioners contend[11] that they should be given priority in the requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to serve;
administration of the estate since they are allegedly the legitimate heirs of the
late Gerardo, as opposed to private respondents, who are purportedly (b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be,
Gerardos illegitimate children. Petitioners rely on the doctrine that generally, it
or next of kin, or the person selected by them, be incompetent
is the nearest of kin, whose interest is more preponderant, who is preferred in
the choice of administrator of the decedents estate. or unwilling, or if the husband or widow, or next of kin, neglects
for thirty (30) days after the death of the person to apply for
Petitioners also claim that they are more competent than private administration or to request that administration be granted to
respondents or their attorney-in-fact to administer Gerardos some other person, it may be granted to one or more of the
estate. Petitioners Vilma and Gerardo Jake Tan (Jake) claim to have lived for principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve;
a long time and continue to reside on Gerardos estate, while respondents are
not even in the Philippines, having long established residence abroad.
(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to
Petitioners additionally claim that petitioner Vilma has been acting as serve, it may be granted to such other person as the court may
the administratrix of the estate since Gerardos death on 14 October 2000 and select.
is thus well steeped in the actual management and operation of the estate
(which essentially consists of agricultural landholdings).[12] However, this Court has consistently ruled that the order of preference in the
appointment of a regular administrator as provided in the afore-quoted
As regards the denial of petitioners plea for the issuance of a Writ of provision does not apply to the selection of a special administrator.[13] The
Preliminary Injunction and/or TRO, petitioners argue that such denial would preference under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court for the next of kin
leave Romualdo, private respondents attorney-in-fact, free to enter Gerardos refers to the appointment of a regular administrator, and not of a special
estate and proceed to act as administrator thereof to the prejudice of administrator, as the appointment of the latter lies entirely in the
petitioners. discretion of the court, and is not appealable.[14]
The appeal is devoid of merit. Not being appealable, the only remedy against the appointment of a
special administrator is Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which
The order of preference petitioners speak of is found in Section 6, Rule was what petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals. Certiorari, however,
78 of the Rules of Court, which provides: requires nothing less than grave abuse of discretion, a term which implies
such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to an
excess or lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and the estate of Gerardo Tan for the best interest of all the
gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to heirs.[16] (Emphases supplied.)
perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law. [15]
Assuming for the sake of argument that petitioner Vilma is indeed
We agree with the Court of Appeals that there was no grave abuse of
better suited for the job as special administratrix, as opposed to Romualdo,
discretion on the part of respondent Judge Gedorio in affirming Judge
who was actually appointed by the court as special administrator of Gerardos
Menchavezs appointment of Romualdo as special administrator. Judge
estate, the latters appointment, at best, would constitute a mere error of
Menchavez clearly considered petitioner Vilma for the position of special
judgment and would certainly not be grave abuse of discretion. An error of
administratrix of Gerardos estate, but decided against her appointment for the
judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction,
following reasons:
and which error is reviewable only by an appeal. On the other hand, an error
of jurisdiction is one in which the act complained of was issued by the court,
Atty. Clinton C. Nuevo, in his capacity as court appointed
officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with
commissioner, directed oppositor Vilma Tan in the latters grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or excess of
capacity as de fact[o] administratrix, to deposit in the fiduciary jurisdiction.[17] The Court of Appeals could not have reversed a mere error of
account of the court all money and cash at hand or deposited in judgment in a Certiorari petition.
the banks which rightfully belong to the estate within five days
from receipt of the directive. Oppositor Vilma Tan was likewise Furthermore, petitioners were not able to sufficiently substantiate their
claim that their co-petitioner Vilma would have been the more competent and
directed to deposit in the same account the proceeds of all
capable choice to serve as the special administratrix of Gerardos
sugarcane harvest or any crop from the estate of the estate. Contrary to petitioners bare assertions, both the RTC and the Court of
decedent. She was likewise directed to submit a financial report Appeals found that the documented failure of petitioner Vilma to comply with
as regards the background of the cash on hand, if any, the the reportorial requirements after the lapse of a considerable length of time
expenses incurred in the course of her administration. The certainly militates against her appointment.
directive was issued by Atty. Nuevo on March 18, 2002 or
more than a year ago. On May 23, 2003, this Court, acting We find immaterial the fact that private respondents reside abroad, for
the same cannot be said as regards their attorney-in-fact, Romualdo, who is,
on the urgent ex parte motion to resolve pending incident,
after all, the person appointed by the RTC as special administrator. It is
gave Vilma Tan another ten days to comply with the undisputed that Romualdo resides in the country and can, thus, personally
directive of Atty. Nuevo. Again, no compliance has been administer Gerardos estate.
made.
If petitioners really desire to avail themselves of the order of
This Court is called upon to preserve the estate of the late preference provided in Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, so that
Gerardo Tan for the benefit of all heirs be that heir is (sic) the petitioner Vilma as the supposed next of kin of the late Gerardo may take over
administration of Gerardos estate, they should already pursue the
nearest kin or the farthest kin. The actuation of oppositor
appointment of a regular administrator and put to an end the delay which
Vilma Tan does not satisfy the requirement of a special necessitated the appointment of a special administrator. The appointment of a
administrator who can effectively and impartially administer special administrator is justified only when there is delay in granting letters,
testamentary (in case the decedent leaves behind a will) or administrative (in
the event that the decedent leaves behind no will, as in the Petition at bar)
occasioned by any cause.[18] The principal object of the appointment of a
temporary administrator is to preserve the estate until it can pass into the
hands of a person fully authorized to administer it for the benefit of creditors
and heirs.[19]