Specro 3
Specro 3
Specro 3
As usual:
FACTS
Sioca as appellant claims that as the surviving spouse of the deceased, he should have been
appointed administrator instead of Jose Garcia.
ISSUE
W/N the Court could disregard the preferential right of the surviving spouse -- Yes, if the
circumstances warrant so
HELD
● A probate court cannot arbitrarily disregard the preferential right of the surviving spouse
to the administration of the estate of a deceased person; but if the person enjoying such
preferential rights is unsuitable the court may appoint another person.
● Unsuitableness for appointment -- may consist in either of two things:
○ Adverse interest of some kind;
○ Hostility to those immediately interested in the estate to such an extent as to
render the appointment unadvisable
● The determination of 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.
○ Such judgment will not be interfered with on appeal unless it appears
affirmatively that the court below was in error.
● Here, the court below that the appellant had adverse interested in the estate of such a
character as to render him unsuitable as administrator (case did not specify reasons; it
merely adhered to the factual rulings of the trial court below).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTS:
● Gil Sr. died testate in Manila instituting his widow as his exclusive heir subject to the
condition that should the widow die, the estate would be inherited by Gil Jr., adopted
son.
● Will was duly admitted to probate, with the widow appointed as the administratix.
● During the Japanese occupation, the widow and the Gil Jr. secured from Respondent
Cancio a LOAN of P89,000.00
● In payment they agreed to transfer to Cancio two lots and a house in Guagua,
Pampanga after the same had been finally adjudicated to both or either of the two heirs.
● Subsequently, Gil Jr. also died, and his mother/widow of Gil Sr., as administratrix of the
estate of her deceased husband Gil Sr., filed a motion in the testate proceedings praying
ISSUE: Whether or not the sale of the 2 parcels of land and house, which were still part of the
estate, should be allowed. –YES, THE SALE SHOULD BE ALLOWED.
HELD:
● When the loan was obtained from Cancio, the estate was already under the
administration. Under Article 1430 of the Civil Code, the widow and children of the
deceased are entitled to certain allowances for their support out of the estate pending its
liquidation and until their shares have been delivered to them.
○ It is probably for this reason that both the widow and the son, who were the
prospective heirs, borrowed money from Cancio in order that they may have
means to support themselves in the interregnum since the estate was then
unproductive, a matter which comes perfectly within the purview of the law.
○ Since this happened during the Japanese occupation, probate court did not
hesitate in approving the agreement. (maybe because life was hard?)
● Giving the administratrix the necessary authority to execute the deed of sale covering
the two properties of the deceased in favor of Cancio provided that the deed of sale be
submitted to the court for its approval, is sanctioned by Section 4, Rule 89 of the Rules
of Court.
○ When it appears that the sale of the whole or a part of the real or personal estate
will be beneficial to the heirs, devisees, legatees, and other interested persons,
the court may, upon application of the executor or administrator and on written
notice to the heirs, devisees and legatees who are interested in the estate to be
sold, authorize the executor or administrator to sell the whole or a part of said
estate, although not necessary to pay debts, legacies, or expenses of
administration. (codal)
● Although the agreement is conditioned upon the final adjudication of said properties to
both or either of the heirs, and such adjudication has not been made in view of the early
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Catchy phrase for the facts): If, under the circumstances of the case, there is another who
has more interest than the surviving spouse, the preference of the spouse is untenable.
FACTS:
ISSUE: Whether the trial court erred in not appointing Angela as administratrix and appointing
Nicolasa without first setting the case for hearing.
HELD: NO.
● General Rule: The law takes into account the preference of the widow to administer the
estate of her husband upon the latter’s death, because she is supposed to have an
interest therein as a partner in the conjugal partnership.
○ EXCEPTION: When there are other reasons justifying the appointment of an
administrator other than the surviving spouse.
○ If, under the circumstances, it develops that there is another who has more
interest than the surviving spouse, the preference of the spouse is untenable.
● Nicolasa alleges that during the marital life of Proceso and his first wife, Agatona, both,
through their mutual labor, acquired all the properties left by Proceso, not having
acquired any property during his second marriage with Angela.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wag ka maniwala kay widow!: The petitioner as a creditor, if the residence of the deceased
was in fact in the Province of Sorsogon, had the right to present a petition for the appointment
of an administrator at any time after thirty days after the death of O. T. K. which occurred on
November 9, 1932. Instead of acting promptly it preferred to rely on the promise of payment
made by the widow and slept on its rights.
FACTS:
ISSUES:
WON the CFI of Manila had jurisdiction over the intestate proceedings
WON petitioner's is entitled to have the intestate proceedings reopened
HELD:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kapag non-resident, hindi pwede maging guardian: 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.
FACTS:
● Plaintiff Salvador Guerrero, guardian of the minors Maria Manuela and Maria del
Carmen Sanchez Muñoz, commenced an action against defendant Teran to recover the
sum of P4,129.56 and costs.
● The amount was claimed upon the theory that defendant Teran had been the
administrator of the estate of Antonio Sanchez Muñoz from the 1st day of September,
1901, until the 22d day of October, 1906.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not Teran, the former appointed guardian and administrator of the minors’ estate,
is liable for all the debts incurred of the estate from March 1902 to October 1906 when Munoz-
Gomez was appointed as the actual administrator--NO
(2) Whether or not the appointment of Maria Munoz as guardian was void since she did not
reside in the Philippine islands at the time of her appointment as the guardian--YES
HELD:
● FIRST ISSUE: Former appointed administrator Teran is NOT liable for the loss that
occurred from 1902 to 1906. Leopoldo Teran was responsible to the plaintiff for the fruits
and profits resulting from their interests in the estate of the said Antonio Sanchez Muñoz
only from 1901-1902.
● SECOND ISSUE: While there is nothing in the law which requires the courts to appoint
residents only as administrators or guardians; however, the courts, charged with the
responsibility of protecting the estates of the deceased persons, wards of the estate, will
find much difficulty in complying with this duty by appointing administrators and
guardians who are not personally subject to their jurisdiction.
○ Notwithstanding the lack of 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 the court.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boy gastos-estafador: Probate court is possessed with an all-embracing power not only in
requiring but also in fixing the amount, and executing or forfeiting an administrator's bond.
FACTS:
● Francis R. Picard, Sr. was appointed Administrator of the Intestate Estate of the
deceased James R. Burt upon bond of PHP 1000.
○ The Court of First Instance approved the bond with Luzon Surety as the surety.
● Picard made numerous disbursements of the estate leaving only the sum of PHP 57 in
the decedent’s PNB account from an estate of PHP 8,000.00. These disbursements
were eventually found to be illegal and Picard was subsequently found guilty of estafa.
● The Court forfeited the bond
ISSUE: Whether the trial court erred in ordering the forfeiture of the bond executed by the
administrator
● Whether the trial court erred in ordering the confiscation of the bond because no
prejudice or injury to any creditor, heir or other interested person has been proved.
● Whether the trial court erred in ordering the forfeiture without notice of proceedings to
the surety
HELD: NO.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but you were not able to prove your legitimacy: In order to resolve the issue of
whether an applicant for letters of administration is a next of kin or an heir, the probate court
perforce has to determine and pass upon the issue of filiation. A separate action will only result
in a multiplicity of suits.
FACTS:
HELD:
Hindi applicable ang rules pag di ka special: The preference under Section 6, Rule 78 of the
Rules of Court for the next of kin refers to the appointment of a regular administrator, and not of
a special administrator, as the appointment of the latter lies entirely in the discretion of the
court, and is not appealable.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
1. W/N the Nearest of Kin Rule applies in the appointment of a special administrator?1 -NO
2. W/N the representative of petitioners (Vilma) should be appointed as special
administrator? -NO
HELD:
1. NO.
a. Petitioners contend that they should be given priority in the administration of the
estate since they are allegedly the legitimate heirs of the late Gerardo, as
opposed to private respondents, who are purportedly Gerardos illegitimate
children.
i. The preference under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court for the
next of kin refers to the appointment of a regular administrator, and not of
a special administrator, as the appointment of the latter lies entirely
in the discretion of the court, and is not appealable.
2. NO. Contrary to petitioners bare assertions, both the RTC and the Court of Appeals
found that the documented failure of petitioner Vilma to comply with the reportorial
requirements after the lapse of a considerable length of time certainly militates against
her appointment.
3. NO. 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, after all, the person
appointed by the RTC as special administrator. It is undisputed that Romualdo resides in
the country and can, thus, personally administer Gerardo’s estate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nag-abroad lang saglit si co-admin, tinanggal na? Wag ganun.: 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 the order of preference shown above 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.
Hi guys sorry mej mahaba. Natakot ako sa Maloles recit ko eh, very detailed. :(
FACTS:
HELD: 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.
Recit-Ready:
This case is about Victoria, legal wife, opposing the petition for letters of administration filed by
Felicidad who is an illegitimate child of Ismael. The two parties were in disagreement because
Victoria was claiming that the properties of left by Ismael were her sole properties. In her
opposition to the petition of Felicidad for administration, she averred that her action failed to
state cause of action because she needs to prove her filiation in an action for recognition. She
claims that such recognition cannot be taken in an action for settlement of estate. The Court
ruled that the allegation of Felicidad of her claim as an illegitimate child in the settlement of
estate of Ismael suffices to uphold a cause of action. However, it is her duty to prove such
allegation so as to establish her material and direct interest in the estate of Ismael.
Comprehensive
FACTS:
● Felicidad A. Tayag-Gallor, filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration
over the estate of Ismael Tayag.
● She alleged in her petition that she is one of the 3 illegitimate children of Israel Tayag
and Ester Angles.
● Ismael (decedent) was married to petitioner, Victoria Tayag but they allegedly did not
have children
● Isamael died intestate leaving 2 real properties and one motor vehicle which was sold in
preparation for the settlement of his estate
● Petitioner allegedly promised to give the 3 illegitimate children 100k each as their share
to the proceeds of the sale
● But petitioner only gave they half the amount
● Felicidad averred that Victoria caused an annotation of an affidavit by Isamael declaring
the properties to be paraphernal properties
● Victoria opposed by stating that she purchased the properties using her own money and
that she and Isamael got married in las Vegas with an adopted daughter living there.
● She reiterated her sole ownership of the properties by showing TCTs under her name.
● She also averred that Felicidad should alleged that she is an acknowledged illegitimate
child because absence of such allegation changes the action into an action for
recognition which cannot be done after the death of the putative father.
● Trial court denied the petition of Victoria.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for issuance of letters of administration sufficiently states a
cause of action considering that Felicidad merely alleged that she is an illegitimate child without
stating that she has been acknowledged or recognised.
HELD:
● YES
● The allegation that respondent is an illegitimate child suffices even without further stating
that she has been so recognized or acknowledged.
● But Felicidad has the duty to prove the allegation so as to prove her material and direct
interest in the estate.
● Essentially, the petition for the issuance of letters of administration is a suit for the
settlement of the intestate estate of Ismael Tayag. The right of respondent to maintain
such a suit is dependent on whether she is entitled to successional rights as an
illegitimate child of the decedent which, in turn, may be established through voluntary or
compulsory recognition.
● respondent in this case had not been given the opportunity to present evidence to show
whether she had been voluntarily recognized and acknowledged by her deceased father
because of petitioners opposition to her petition and motion for hearing on affirmative
defenses. There is, as yet, no way to determine if her petition is actually one to compel
recognition which had already been foreclosed by the death of her father, or whether
indeed she has a material and direct interest to maintain the suit by reason of the
decedents voluntary acknowledgment or recognition of her illegitimate filiation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contingent Creditors
FACTS:
● The well-known sugar magnate Roberto S. Benedicto died intestate on 15 May 2000.
○ He was survived by his wife, Julita Campos Benedicto (Julita), and his only
daughter, Francisca.
● At the time of his death, there were two pending civil cases in RTC of Bacolod City
against Benedicto involving the petitioners Alfredo Hildo, Lopez Sugar
Corporation and First Farmers Holding Corporation.
● On 25 May 2000, private respondent Julita filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for the
issuance of letters of administration in her favor.
○ Said petition acknowledged the value of the assets of the decedent to be P5
Million, net of liabilities.
ISSUES:
1) WON the petitioners have the right to intervene in the intestate proceedings of the estate
of Roberto Benedicto - No right to intervene under Rule 19. But entitled to notice
and other reliefs available to creditors under the Rules on Special Proceedings.
2) WON the petitioners are entitled to the following reliefs that they are asking for:
○ 2.1. First, they prayed that they be henceforth furnished copies of all processes
and orders issued by the intestate court as well as the pleadings filed by
administratrix Benedicto with the said court. - Not entitled to service of all
processes and orders, but allowed ACCESS to records
○ 2.2. Second, they prayed that the intestate court set a deadline for the
submission by administratrix Benedicto to submit a verified and complete
inventory of the estate, and upon submission thereof, order the inheritance tax
appraisers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to assist in the appraisal of the fair
market value of the same. - Relief to compel administrator to perform duty
under Rule 83 not available to contingent creditors. But there are reliefs
available under Rule 88.
○ 2.3. Third, petitioners moved that the intestate court set a deadline for the
submission by the administrator of her verified annual account, and, upon
submission thereof, set the date for her examination under oath with respect
thereto, with due notice to them and other parties interested in the collation,
preservation and disposition of the estate. - Relief available under Rule 88
HELD:
1) Section 1 of Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires that an intervenor has
a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an
interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or
other disposition of property in the custody of the court x x x
a) CA: While the language of Section 1, Rule 19 does not literally preclude
petitioners from intervening in the intestate proceedings, case law has
consistently held that the legal interest required of an intervenor must be actual
and material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent and expectant.
● Had the claims of petitioners against Benedicto been based on contract, whether
express or implied, then they should have filed their claim, even if contingent, under the
aegis of the notice to creditors to be issued by the court immediately after granting
letters of administration and published by the administrator immediately after the
issuance of such notice.
○ However, it appears that the claims against Benedicto were based on tort, as
they arose from his actions in connection with Philsucom, Nasutra and Traders
Royal Bank.
■ Civil actions for tort or quasi-delict do not fall within the class of
claims to be filed under the notice to creditors required under Rule
86.
■ These actions, being as they are civil, survive the death of the decedent
and may be commenced against the administrator pursuant to Section 1,
Rule 87.
■ Indeed, the records indicate that the intestate estate of Benedicto, as
represented by its administrator, was successfully impleaded in Civil
● Petitioners’ interests in the estate of Benedicto may be inchoate interests, but they are
viable interests nonetheless.
○ We are mindful that the Rules of Special Proceedings allows not just creditors,
but also any person interested or persons interested in the estate various
specified capacities to protect their respective interests in the estate.
○ Anybody with a contingent claim based on a pending action for quasi-delict
against a decedent may be reasonably concerned that by the time judgment is
rendered in their favor, the estate of the decedent would have already been
distributed, or diminished to the extent that the judgment could no longer be
enforced against it.
● In the same manner that the Rules on Special Proceedings do not provide a creditor or
any person interested in the estate, the right to participate in every aspect of the testate
or intestate proceedings, but instead provides for specific instances when such persons
may accordingly act in those proceedings,
○ we deem that while there is no general right to intervene on the part of the
petitioners, they may be allowed to seek certain prayers or reliefs from the
intestate court not explicitly provided for under the Rules, if the prayer or relief
sought is necessary to protect their interest in the estate, and there is no other
modality under the Rules by which such interests can be protected.
○ It is under this standard that we assess the three prayers sought by petitioners.
Relief #1:
● Petitioners: Relief will allow them to be duly alerted of the developments in the intestate
proceedings, including the status of the assets of the estate, thereby assisting them in
the protection of their interest.
● Respondents: dangerous precedent that would unduly complicate and burden the
intestate proceedings because anybody posing a claim, no matter how wanting of merit,
would be entitled to service of all the processes of the court
● SC: Allowing creditors, contingent or otherwise, access to the records of the intestate
proceedings is an eminently preferable precedent than mandating the service of court
processes and pleadings upon them.
○ In either case, the interest of the creditor in seeing to it that the assets are being
preserved and disposed of in accordance with the rules will be duly satisfied.
○ Acknowledging their right to access the records, rather than entitling them to the
service of every court order or pleading no matter how relevant to their individual
claim, will be less cumbersome on the intestate court, the administrator and the
heirs of the decedent, while providing a viable means by which the interests of
the creditors in the estate are preserved.
● Concerning complaints against the general competence of the administrator, the proper
remedy is to seek the removal of the administrator in accordance with Section 2, Rule
82.
○ While the provision is silent as to who may seek with the court the removal of the
administrator, we do not doubt that a creditor, even a contingent one, would have
the personality to seek such relief.
○ After all, the interest of the creditor in the estate relates to the preservation of
sufficient assets to answer for the debt, and the general competence or good
faith of the administrator is necessary to fulfill such purpose.
● All told, the ultimate disposition of the RTC and the Court of Appeals is correct.
Nonetheless, as we have explained, petitioners should not be deprived of their
prerogatives under the Rules on Special Proceedings as enunciated in this decision.
Kahit ampon ka lang: The probate court may appoint a special 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 this qualification, the
appointment of a special administrator lies in the discretion of the Court.
FACTS:
● Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel, wife of Lorenzo, died.
● Her mother, Crisanta Santiago Vda. de Yanga, commenced an intestate proceeding and
alleged, among others, that to her knowledge, her daughter died intestate leaving an
estate with an estimated net value of P1,500,000.00 and that such estate was being
managed by her wastrel and incompetent son-in-law, Lorenzo. Belinda Castillo, claiming
to be the only legitimate child of Lorenzo and Crisanta, filed a motion for intervention.
● Roberto Gabriel, the legally adopted son of Crisanta Y. Gabriel, filed before the RTC of
Malabon City a petition for probate of an alleged will and for the issuance of letters
testamentary in his favor. He alleged that he discovered his mother's will in which he
was instituted as the sole heir of the testatrix, and designated as alternate executor for
the named executor therein, Francisco, a brother of Crisanta, who had predeceased the
latter.
● Belinda Castillo died and her heirs filed a Motion praying that they be substituted as
party-litigants in lieu of their late mother.
● Roberto Gabriel died. His widow, Dolores L. Gabriel, 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 as well|||
● The lower court appointed Dolores as special administratrix upon a bond
ISSUE: Whether the appointment of respondent Dolores as special administratrix of the estate
left by Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel proper?
HELD:
● YES. The appointment of a special administrator lies entirely in the discretion of the
court.
○ The order of preference in the appointment of a regular administrator under
Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court does not apply to the selection of a
special administrator.
○ In the issuance of such appointment, which is but temporary and subsists only
until a regular administrator is appointed, the court determines who is entitled to
the administration of the estate of the decedent.
● In this case, Roberto Gabriel — the legally adopted son of Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel —
survived Crisanta's death. When Crisanta died her estate passed on to her surviving
adopted son Roberto. When Roberto himself later died pursuant to the law on
succession, his own estate which he inherited from Crisanta passed on to his surviving
widow, private respondent.
○ While it is true, as petitioners submit, that private respondent is neither a
compulsory nor a legal heir of Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel and is considered a third
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60. Rioferio v. CA
FACTS: Whether the heirs may bring suit to recover property of the estate pending the
appointment of an administrator is the issue in this case.
Alfonso P. Orfinada, Jr. died without a will in Angeles City leaving several personal and real
properties located in Angeles City, Dagupan City and Kalookan City. He also left a widow,
respondent Esperanza and seven children namely: Lourdes, Alfonso, Nancy P. Orfinada-
Happenden, Alfonso James, Christopher, Alfonso Mike (deceased) and Angelo.
He also left paramour and their children. They are petitioner Teodora Riofero, and co-
petitioners Veronica, Alberto and Rowena.
Alfonso James and Lourdes discovered that petitioner Teodora and her children executed
an Extrajudicial Settlement with Quitclaim involving properties of estate of decedent located in
Dagupan City and that accordingly, Registry of Deeds in Dagupan issued Certificates of Titles in
favor of petitioners. They also found out that petitioners were able to obtain loan of P700,000.00
from Rural Bank of Mangaldan Inc. by executing a Real Estate Mortgage over the properties
subject of the extra-judicial settlement.
LC: Denied motion. Ruled that respondents, as heirs, are the real parties-in-interest
especially in the absence of an administrator who is yet to be appointed in S.P. Case No. 5118.
ISSUES
1. WON holding of preliminary hearing on affirmative defense is mandatory
2. WON heirs have legal standing to prosecute rights belonging to deceased
subsequent to commencement of administration proceedings.
HELD:
1. The holding of a preliminary hearing on an affirmative defense lies in the
discretion of the court. Rules of Court SEC. 5. Pleadings grounds as affirmative
defenses.- Any of the grounds for dismissal provided for in this rule, except
improper venue, may be pleaded as an affirmative defense, and a preliminary
hearing MAY be had thereon as if a motion to dismiss had been filed. (Emphasis
supplied.) The word may denotes discretion and cannot be construed as having a
mandatory effect.Pending the filing of administration proceedings, the heirs without
doubt have legal personality to bring suit in behalf of the estate of the decedent in
accordance with the provision of Article 777 of the New Civil Code that the rights to
succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent.
In the case of Gochan v. Young, Court recognized the legal standing of heirs to
represent the rights and properties of the decedent under administration pending the
All told, therefore, the rule that the heirs have no legal standing to sue for the recovery
of property of the estate during the pendency of administration proceedings has three
exceptions, the third being when there is no appointed administrator such as in this
case.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
61. Silverio v. CA
Di naman sayo, bakit mo inaagaw: Once an action for the settlement of an estate is led with
the court, the properties included therein are under the control of the intestate court. And not
even the administrator may take possession of any property that is part of the estate without the
prior authority of the Court.
FACTS:
● Case is about settlement of estate of the deceased Beatriz Silverio.
● During the pendency of the case, Ricardo Silverio, Junior (Junior) led a petition to
remove Ricardo Silverio, Senior (Senior) as the administrator.
● RTC removed Senior and appointed Junior as administrator.
● Junior filed urgent motion to prohibit any person to occupy/stay/use real estate
properties belonging in the estate of deceased.
● RTC granted request and issued order which directed Nelia S. Silverio-Dee to vacate the
property at Forbes Park, Makati City (property in controversy).
● Few days later, RTC issued order which:
○ reinstated Senior as administrator.
○ allowed the sale of various properties of the intestate estate to partially settle
estate taxes, penalties, interests and other charges due thereon.
■ Among the properties authorized to be sold was the property at Forbes
Park, Makati City.
● Nelia S. Silverio-Dee appealed but to no avail. She is contending that she is the rightful
occupant as she allegedly secured the property from Senior.
ISSUE: WON Nelia S. Silverio-Dee is the rightful occupant of the property at Forbes Park,
Makati City? - NO. Nelia S. Silverio-Dee is NOT the rightful occupant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------