3D SpecPro Digests

1. GUERRERO vs TERAN

FACTS

  • Plaintiff commenced an action against the Defendant to recover a sum of money. This amount was claimed by the Plaintiff from the Defendant upon the theory that the latter had been the administrator of the estate of one Munoz from September 1901 until October 1906.
  • The lower court found from the evidence that the Defendant, as administrator of the estate of Antonio Sanchez Muñoz, or that part of the said estate belonging to the Plaintiff, owed the Plaintiff the sum of P3K, with interest at 6 per cent until the same amount should be fully paid. From this decision defendant appealed.
  • As it turns out, sometime in 1902, a certain Maria Gomez was appointed guardian of the minors hence defendant from that day forth was replaced as administrator of the estate. But sometime in 1906 Maria was removed as administratrix of the estate because she was not a resident of the Philippines at the time of her appointment.

ISSUES & ARGUMENTS

W/N defendant is liable for the whole amount being claimed by plaintiff despite having been replaced by another administratrix who was later disqualified? NO.

HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI

  • While there are some indications in the record that the Defendant continued to act as the administrator of said estate after the appointment of Maria Gomez, up to and including October 1906 yet the fact exists and must be accepted as true that the said Maria Gomez was the actual representative of the said minors in the administration of their interests in the estate of Munoz, from and after March 1902 until October 1906, and therefore Maria Gomez, as such guardian and administratrix of the estate of the said minors, must be held responsible for the property belonging to said minors during the period while she (Maria Gomez) was the actual guardian of said minors.
  • From the order of the judge annulling the appointment of the said Maria Gomez her lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, which appeal was subsequently withdrawn. The order therefore revoking the appointment of Maria Gomez became final. The mere fact, however, that she had been removed as said guardian did not relieve her, nor her bondsmen from liability to the minors during the time that she was duly acting as said guardian. It must be clear, therefore, that Maria Gomez is responsible to said minors for the administration of their interests in the estate of the said Antonio Sanchez Munoz from the time of her acceptance of said appointment on the 18th day of March, 1902, up to the time of her removal on the 6th day of October, 1906. If during this time she allowed other persons to handle the property of her wards and if any mismanagement or loss occurred thereby, the responsibility must fall upon her.
  • Doña Maria Munoz y Gomez was, as above indicated, removed upon the theory that her appointment was void because she did not reside in the Philippine Islands. There is nothing in the law which requires the courts to appoint residents only as administrators or guardians. However, notwithstanding the fact that there are no statutory requirements upon this question, the courts, charged with the responsibilities of protecting the estates of deceased persons, wards of the estate, etc., will find much difficulty in complying with this duty by appointing administrators and guardians who are not personally subject to their jurisdiction. Notwithstanding that there is no statutory requirement, the courts should not consent to the appointment of persons as administrators and guardians who are not personally subject to the jurisdiction of our courts here.

(Ergo, Teran was only responsible to the amount corresponding to the time he was the administrator of the estate which was from sept. 1901- Oct. 1902. This was only around 100+ pesos.)

2. Navas vs. Garcia |Ostrand

FACTS

  • Juan Navas is the surviving spouse of the deceased Geronima Uy Coque and he alleges that the court erred in not appointing him as administrator
  • Jose Garcia was appointed as the administrator of the deceased’s estate.

ISSUES & ARGUMENTS

  • Whether the court erred in not appointing the surviving spouse as administrator?

HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI

NO.

  • A probate court cannot arbitrarily and without sufficient reason disregard the preferential rights of the surviving spouse to the administration of the estate of the deceased spouse. But, if the person enjoying such preferential rights is unsuitable, the court may appoint another person. (Paragraph 2 of sec. 642 of the Code of Civil Procedure.)
  • The determination of a person's suitability for the office of administrator rests, to a great extent, in the sound judgment of the court exercising the power of appointment and such judgment will not be interfered with on appeal unless it appears affirmatively that the court below was in error.
  • In the present case, the court based its ruling on the fact that it appeared from the record in Civil Case No. 1041 of the same court, that the appellant had adverse interest in the estate of such a character as to render him unsuitable as administrator.
  • Unsuitableness may consist in adverse interest of some kind or hostility to those immediately interested in the estate.

3. Mercado vs. Viude de Jaen |

FACTS

  • Bishop Gorrordo of Cebu died testate
  • His will named Father Mercado, parish priest of San Nicolas, as executor and his sister Maria Gorordo as universal heir
  • Maria Gorordo seeks to have Mercado disqualified as executor for unfitness or incapacity to discharge the duties of executor

ISSUES & ARGUMENTS

  • W/N Mercado is unfit for contracting the services of Atty. Alo
  • W/N Mercado is unfit as his parish was a beneficiary in the will
  • W?N they can Extra-Judicially Partition
  • W/N Gorordo is in a better position to protect the interests of the estate

HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI

No

  • Mercado did not contract the services of Alo as executor but in his own personal capacity to defend him in this suit.

No

  • The legacy was not to the parish of Mercado but to the poor in Cebu and San Nicolas to be determined by the Bishop of the Diocese thus Mercado has no hand in it.

No

  • There are so many legacies in the will and it is premature to say that the estate has no debts

No

  • Appelants failed to prove that if they were the executor, the settlement of the estate would be immune from irregularities.

4. OZAETA vs PECSON and BPI|Labrador, J.

FACTS

  • Carlos Palanca died on September 2, 1950 leaving a will executed by him in 1945.
  • In the said will, former associate justice Roman Ozaeta was named executor if General Manuel Roxas failed to qualify.
  • Upon Palanca and Gen. Manuel Roxas death, Ozaeta presented a petition for the probate of the will, at the same time praying that he be appointed as special administrator.
  • The heirs of the decedent opposed and Philippine Trust Company, a non-applicant and a stranger to the proceeding was appointed as special administrator. Philippine Trust later resigned as special administrator due to conflict of interest for it granted a loan to one of the heirs, Angel Palanca.
  • Ozaeta applied again but the court appointed Sebastian Palanca in place of Philippine Trust.
  • On October 25, 1951 the court allowed Philippine Trust to resign and reconsidered its order appointing Sebastian Palanca as Special Administrator, and appointed instead the Bank of the Philippine Islands.
  • Petitioner moved to reconsider the order but this motion was denied and thereupon the present petition was filed. In its order the court held that it had discretion to choose the special administrator and it is not bound to appoint the person named in the will as executor because the order had been appealed.

ISSUES & ARGUMENTS

W/N the probate court can appoint any person as special administrator other than the executor named in the will if the proceeding is still under appeal? - NO

HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI

Rule 81 of the Rules of Court grants discretion to the probate court to appoint or not to appoint a special administrator. It is silent as to the person who may be appointed as special administrator.

When a will has been admitted to probate, it is the duty of the probate court to issue letters testamentary to the person named as executor in the will upon the latter’s application even if the order of probate is on appeal.

Unlike Rule 79 Sec 6 which clearly stipulated that the order of preference of persons who may be appointed as regular administrators.

The appointment of Special Administrators is not governed by the rules regarding the appointment of regular administrators. But the fact that the judge is granted discretion authorizes him to become partial, or to make his personal choice to prevail, or his passions to rule his judgment. There is no reason why the same legal and fundamental principles governing the choice of a regular administrator should not be taken into account in the appointment of the special administrator.

5. Intestate estate of the deceased Proceso de Guzman.

NICOLASA DE GUZMAN vs. ANGELA LIMCOLIOC| VILLA-REAL, J.

FACTS

Background of the case: Nicolasa and Apolinario are children of the deceased Proceso from his first wife, Agatona. After Agatona's death, the deceased contracted a second marriage with Angela Limcolioc, with whom he did not have any child. In a previous decision of the court involving the same parties as this present one, Angela objected to the appointment of Nicolasa as administrator saying that it should be her since she is the surviving spouse. The SC said no, since the properties left by Proceso were acquired during the subsistence of deceased’s first marriage then Nicolasa as daughter has more interest therein than Angela (take note of the first bullet in the Ratio). In this case, Angela objects to the appointment of Apolinario as co-administrator for the same reason.

  • This is an appeal taken by the oppositor Angela Limcolioc (second wife of Proceso) from the order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, dated March 30, 1938, wherein said court appointed Apolinario De Guzman as co-administrator of Nicolasa De Guzman, the latter two being son and daughter, respectively, of the deceased Proceso.

ISSUES & ARGUMENTS

W/N CFI erred in its appointment of Apolinario instead of Angela considering that the latter is the wife of the deceased?

HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI

NO. The lower court having been of the opinion that Apolinario de Guzman deserves appointment of co-administrator, and it being discretionary on its part to determine who should be appointed administrator of the properties of a deceased person, we believe it unjustified for us to meddle in the exercise of such discretion, it not appearing that said court has committed a grave abuse thereof

  • The interest in the estate is what principally determines the preference in the appointment of an administrator of the estate of a deceased person, and if, under the circumstances of each case, it develops that there is another who has more interest therein than the surviving spouse, the preference established in the latter's favor falls to the ground.
  • It is true that Apolinario de Guzman's father, Proceso de Guzman, in life, filed a complaint against his son on the ground that the latter, as administrator of his father's estate, misappropriated from P12,000 to P15,000 to buy a fishery, a De Soto sedan, and a duck farm in Los Baños, and loaned money and made deposits in the Philippine National Bank, but said complaint was dismissed at the instance of the father himself. In the present case, aside from the fact that Apolinario de Guzman, as co-administrator, will administer properties in which he has a greater share than that of the oppositor, the childless widow of the deceased by a second marriage, and will act merely as a helper of his sister, there is no ground to believe that he would squander said properties and the products thereof.

6. Gonzales vs. Aguinaldo | Padilla, J

FACTS

  • Special Proceedings No. 021 is an intestate proceeding involving the estate of the deceased Doña Ramona Gonzales Vda. de Favis
  • Doña Ramona is survived by her four (4) children who are her only heirs, namely, Asterio Favis, Beatriz F. Gonzales, Teresa F. Olbes, and Cecilia Favis-Gomez.
  • The court a quo appointed petitioner Beatriz F. Gonzales and private respondent Teresa Olbes as co-administratices of the estate.
  • While petitioner Beatriz F. Gonzales was in the United States accompanying her ailing husband who was receiving medical treatment in that country, private respondent Teresa Olbes filed a motion, to remove Beatriz F. Gonzales as co-administratrix, on the ground that she is incapable or unsuitable to discharge the trust and had committed acts and omissions detrimental to the interest of the estate and the heirs.
  • Then, respondent Judge Zoilo Aguinaldo issued an Order dated 4 December 1984 which required Beatriz F. Gonzales and the other parties to file their opposition.
  • Only Asterio Favis opposed the removal of Beatriz F. Gonzales as co-administratrix, as the latter was still in the United States attending to her ailing husband.
  • Therafter respondent Judge cancelled the letters of administration granted to Beatriz F. Gonzales and retained Teresa Olbes as the administratrix of the estate of the late Ramona Gonzales.
  • The court explained that it would be to the best interest of the estate if two administrators who are the children of the deceased would jointly administer the same. However, the two administrators have not seen eye to eye with each other and most of the time they have been at loggerheads with each other to the prejudice of the estate. Therefore, the court believes that there should be now only one administrator of the estate.
  • Petitioner contends Court that respondent Judge's Order should be nullified on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, as her removal was not shown by respondents to be anchored on any of the grounds provided under Section 2, Rule 82, Rules of Court, which states:

> Sec. 2. Court may remove or accept resignation of executor or administrator. Proceedings upon death, resignation or removal — If an executor or administrator neglects to render his account and settle the estate according to law, or to perform an order or judgment of the court, or a duty expressly provided by these rules, or absconds, or becomes insane, or otherwise incapable or unsuitable to discharge the trust, the court may remove him, or in its discretion, may permit him to

ISSUES & ARGUMENTS

  • W/N the removal of Beatriz is warranted

HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI

NO.

  • The rule is that if no executor is named in the will, or the named executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a person dies intestate, the court must appoint an administrator of the estate of the deceased who shall act as representative not only of the court appointing him but also of the heirs and the creditors of the estate.
  • In the exercise of its discretion, the probate court may appoint one, two or more co-administrators to have the benefit of their judgment and perhaps at all times to have different interests represented
  • In the appointment of the administrator of the estate of a deceased person, the principal consideration reckoned with is the interest in said estate of the one to be appointed as administrator. This is the same consideration which Section 6 of Rule 78 takes into account in establishing the order of preference in the appointment of administrators for the estate.
  • The underlying assumption behind this rule is that those who will reap the benefit of a wise, speedy, economical administration of the estate, or, on the other hand, suffer the consequences of waste, improvidence or mismanagement, have the highest interest and most influential motive to administer the estate correctly.
  • Administrators have such an interest in the execution of their trust as entitle them to protection from removal without just cause. 10 Hence, Section 2 of Rule 82 of the Rules of Court provides the legal and specific causes authorizing the court to remove an administrator.
  • While it is conceded that the court is invested with ample discretion in the removal of an administrator, it however must have some fact legally before it in order to justify a removal.
  • There must be evidence of an act or omission on the part of the administrator not conformable to or in disregard of the rules or the orders of the court, which it deems sufficient or substantial to warrant the removal of the administrator.
  • In the present case, the court a quo did not base the removal of the petitioner as co-administratrix on any of the causes specified in respondent's motion for relief of the petitioner. Neither did it dwell on, nor determine the validity of the charges brought against petitioner by respondent Olbes. The court based the removal of the petitioner on the fact that in the administration of the estate, conflicts and misunderstandings have existed between petitioner and respondent Teresa Olbes which allegedly have prejudiced the estate, and the added circumstance that petitioner had been absent from the country since October 1984, and up to 15 January 1985.
  • Certainly, it is desirable that the administration of the deceased's estate be marked with harmonious relations between co-administrators. But for mere disagreements between such joint fiduciaries, without misconduct, one's removal is not favored. 12Conflicts of opinion and judgment naturally, and, perhaps inevitably, occur between persons with different interests in the same estate. Such conflicts, if unresolved by the co-administrators, can be resolved by the probate court to the best interest of the estate and its heirs.
  • Further, the court a quo failed to find hard facts showing that the conflict and disharmony between the two (2) co-administratrices were unjustly caused by petitioner, or that petitioner was guilty of incompetence in the fulfillment of her duties.
  • It appears too that petitioner's absence from the country was known to respondent Olbes, and that the latter and petitioner Gonzales had continually maintained correspondence with each other with respect to the administration of the estate during the petitioner's absence from the country. As a matter of fact, petitioner, while in the United States, sent respondent Olbes a letter addressed to the Land Bank of the Philippines dated 14 November 1984, and duly authenticated by the Philippine Consulate in San Francisco, authorizing her (Olbes) to receive, and collect the interests accruing from the Land Bank bonds belonging to the estate, and to use them for the payment of accounts necessary for the operation of the administration.
  • The above facts, we note, show that petitioner had never abandoned her role as co-administratrix of the estate nor had she been remiss in the fulfillment of her duties
  • Suffice it to state, temporary absence in the state does not disqualify one to be an administrator of the estate.
  • Further, Suffice it to state that the removal of an administrator does not lie on the whims, caprices and dictates of the heirs or beneficiaries of the estate, nor on the belief of the court that it would result in orderly and efficient administration since the administrator had such an interest as entitled him to protection from removal without cause.

7. B.E. Johannes, et al v. Honorable George R. Harvey, et al |Malcolm