01 Heirs of Castillo v.

Gabriel
G.R. No. 162934 (11 November 2005)
Callejo, Sr., J. / Tita K

Subject Matter: Rule 80: Special Administrator; circumstances warranting special appointment
Summary:
Roberto Gabriel, the legally adopted son of the deceased Crisanta, was appointed as special administrator. However, pending
probateof the deceased, Roberto died. Respondent Dolores, wife of Roberto then informed the probate court of her husbands death
and filed a motion to be admitted as substitute in palce of her husband. The heirs of Belinda (grandchildren of the deceased,
children of the deceased’s daughter), herein petitioners, opposed Dolores’ motion arguing that Dolores’ is not the next of kin of the
deceased Crisanta, citing Rule 78, Sec. 6. The lower court appointed Dolores as special administratrix of Crisanta’s estate ruling that
the order of preference (Rule 78, Sec. 6) does not apply in the appointment of a special administrator. CA found no grave abuse on
the part of the lower court in making such decision. The SC also agreed with the CA and ruled that Rule 80 sec. 1 allows appointment
of special administrator in case of delay. It found that the probate court had ample jurisdiction to appoint respondent Dolores as
special administratrix because originally, his husband who was named sole heir in will. He died pending probate of the will, leaving
Dolores as his sole heir. Therefore Dolores has much stake in Crisanta’s estate in case the latter’s will is allowed.

Doctrines:
The principal object of appointment of temporary administrator is to preserve the estate until it can pass into hands of person fully
authorized to administer it for the benefit of creditors and heirs, especially that the appointment of administrators for the estates of
decedents frequently become involved in protracted1 litigations, thereby exposing such estates to great waste and losses.

The new Rules have broadened the basis for appointment of an administrator, and such appointment is allowed when there is delay
in granting the letters testamentary or administration by any cause.

Section 6, Rule 78 refers to appointment of regular administrators of estates, while Section 1, Rule 80, on the other hand, applies to
appointment of special administrator. In other words, the appointment of special administrators is not governed by the rules
regarding the appointment of regular administrator.
Parties:
Heirs of Belinda Dahlia A. Castillo, namely,
Petitioner
Bena Jean, Daniel, Melchor, Michael and Danibel, all surnamed Castillo,
Respondent Dolores Lacuata-Gabriel
Facts:
Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel (deceased), wife of Lorenzo B. Almoradie2, died in Malabon City.
The deceased left behind a sizable inheritance consisting mostly of real estate and shares of stock.
Crisanta has 2 children, Belinda (legitimate child with ex-husband Lorenzo) and Roberto (legally adopted son).
Roberto Y. Gabriel, the legally adopted son of the deceased, filed a petition for probate of an alleged will and for the issuance
of letters testamentary in his favor before the RTC of Malabon City. He alleged that:
Francisco S. Yanga, a brother of the deceased who had predeceased the latter, was named executor therein.
He was designated as alternate executor and instituted as the testatrix’s sole heir.
The probate court appointed Roberto Y. Gabriel as special administrator of his mother’s estate.
When Roberto died, his widow, Dolores Gabriel (respondent), filed a “Manifestation and Motion where she informed the
probate court of her husband’s death and prayed that she be admitted as substitute in place of her late husband, and be
appointed as administratrix of the estate of Crisanta Gabriel. She alleged that she had a bachelor’s degree in law and had
worked for several years in a law office.
The heirs of Belinda3 (petitioner) opposed Dolores’ manifestation and motion. They averred that Dolores was not Crisanta
Gabriel’s next of kin, nor the lawful wife of the late Roberto.

1 Lasts longer than intended

2 Marriage with Lorenzo was declared void for being bigamous.
3 Belinda, daughter of Crisanta, died in 1990, 1 year after her mother’s death.
 Petitioner Bena Jean filed a “Motion for Appointment as Administrator of the Estate of Crisanta Y. Gabriel” praying that she be
appointed administratrix of the estate of her grandmother Crisanta.
The lower court appointed Dolores as special administratrix. Lower court held that:
Dolores L. Gabriel has amply proven her kinship Roberto Y. Gabriel, and therefore her kinship, by operation of law, with
decedent Crisanta Y. Gabriel. She is the lawfully wedded wife of petitioner Roberto Y. Gabriel and that the previous
marriage between petitioner and one Lucita V. Cruz was already long dissolved prior to the celebration of marriage
between Roberto and Dolores.
The stringent rules regarding the order of preference in the appointment of an (regular) Administrator does not find
application in the instant case, for what is at stake here is the appointment of a Special Administrator as such position
was vacated by the death of Roberto, the previously appointed Special Administrator.
Heirs of Belinda moved to reconsider, which the probate court DENIED.
The said heirs then filed with the CA a petition for certiorari, praying that Bena Jean be appointed as the regular administratrix
of Crisanta Gabriel’s estate.
CA dismissed the petition, finding that the probate court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in appointing Dolores as
special administratrix. (no further explanation)
Issue/s:

1. WON the appointment of respondent Dolores Gabriel as special administratrix of the estate left by Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel
is proper/correct. (YES)

Argument:

Petitioners argue that:

Since the respondent does not have any right to inherit from their grandmother, either by her own right or by the right of
representation, she is not qualified to be appointed as administratrix of the estate. They insist that the respondent’s late husband,
Roberto, was just a nephew of the decedent and not a legally adopted son as he claimed to be.

Even assuming this claim was true, the fact that the respondent is not naturally related to the decedent by blood in the direct
descending line makes it unfair to appoint her as the special administratrix.

Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court establishes the order of preference in the appointment of such administrators, and that the
underlying assumption behind this rule is that those who will reap the benefit of a wise, speedy, economical administration of the
estate, or suffer the consequences of waste, improvidence or mismanagement, have the highest interest and most influential motive
to administer the estate correctly.

Ratio:

Yes – appointement of Dolores Gabriel as special administratix was proper/correct.

 A special administrator is a representative of a decedent appointed by the probate court to care for and preserve his estate
until an executor or general administrator is appointed.
 The appointment of a special administrator lies in the sound discretion of the probate court. This discretion, however, must
be sound, that is, not whimsical, or contrary to reason, justice, equity or legal principle (De Guzman v. Guadiz).
 When appointed, a special administrator is regarded not as a representative of the agent parties suggesting the
appointment, but as the administrator in charge of the estate, and in fact, as an officer of the court.
 Issuance of such appointment is only temporary and subsists only until a regular administrator is appointed.
 The principal object of appointment of temporary administrator is to preserve the estate until it can pass into hands of
person fully authorized to administer it for the benefit of creditors and heirs, especially that the appointment of
administrators for the estates of decedents frequently become involved in protracted 4 litigations, thereby exposing such
estates to great waste and losses unless an authorized agent to collect the debts and preserve the assets in the interim is
appointed.

Section 1, Rule 80 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

4 Lasts longer than intended

 Appointment of Special Administrator.—When there is delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration by any
cause including an appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a will, the court may appoint a special administrator to
take possession and charge of the estate of the deceased until the questions causing the delay are decided and executors or
administrators appointed.

 The new Rules have broadened the basis for appointment of an administrator, and such appointment is allowed when there
is delay in granting the letters testamentary or administration by any cause.
 The basis for appointing a special administrator under the Rules5 is broad enough to include any cause or reason for the
delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration such as where a contest as to the will is being carried on in the
same or in another court, or where there is an appeal pending as to the proceeding on the removal of an executor or
administrator, or in cases where the parties cannot agree among themselves (De Guzman v. Guadiz).
o In this case, the probate court has ample jurisdiction (reasons) to appoint respondent as special administratrix.
o The deceased Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel left a will where her adopted son, Roberto, was named as the sole heir and
executor 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
will is allowed probate.

 The SC emphasized that in the appointment of a special administrator, the probate court does not determine the shares in
the decedent’s estate, but merely appoints who is entitled to administer the estate. The issue of heirship is one to be
determined in the decree of distribution, and the findings of the court on the relationship of the parties in the
administration as to be the basis of distribution.
o Thus, the preference of respondent Dolores is sound, that is, not whimsical, or contrary to reason, justice, equity
or legal principle. (In my understanding, special administrator need not be the next of kin. As long as may interest
siya sa estate, he can be a special administrator.)

 The Section 6, Rule 78 refers to the appointment of regular administrators of estates; Section 1, Rule 80, on the other
hand, applies to the appointment of a special administrator. The appointment of special administrators is not governed by
the rules regarding the appointment of regular administrators. Thus, “the statutory provisions as to the prior or preferred
right of certain persons to the appointment of administrator under Section 1, Rule 81, as well as the statutory provisions as
to causes for removal of an executor or administrator under Section 2, Rule 83, do not apply to the selection or removal of
special administrator (Roxas v. Pecson).
o The petitioners’ strenuous invocation of Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court is misplaced.

Wherefore, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 70645, dated October 30, 2003,
and its Resolution of March 26, 2004 are AFFIRMED.

5 1997 Rules of Court