Specro 3

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 26

YOOOO.

As usual:

1. Please check this for the NUMBER ASSIGNMENTS:


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1t4Qqm_Rqek20V3w62_8HxKjSrfgnSXDJ
a4DSeoEMKrs/edit?usp=sharing

2. Please check this for the TEMPLATE / INSTRUCTIONS WE AGREED UPON:


https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hLi1mi2iBmwIdxyBr9xB_Le6uGebZ8SbMoz
rNG84O4s/edit?usp=sharing

3. Please start pasting your digests in the NEXT PAGE. THANKS!!


46. Sioca vs. Garcia

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).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

47. Gil vs. Cancio

Pangkain ng mag-ina, kukunin mula sa pagbenta ng maimamana (estate of decedent).

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

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 1


for an order to authorize her to execute the necessary deed of transfer of the two lots
and house to Cancio.
● Widow of Gil Jr. expressed her conformity as guardian of her minor children.
● This motion was approved by the judge on condition that the original of the deed of
transfer should be submitted to the court for approval.
● Later, widow of Gil Sr. died as well before being able to execute the deed of transfer in
favor of Cancio so the deed was executed by the widow of Gil Jr. in her capacity as co-
administratrix and vendor of the properties. (so patay na yung father, wife and adopted
son)
● The probate court issued an order directing to pay estate and inheritance taxes
BEFORE approval of the sale but nothing was done on the matter.
● Several years later, Cancio filed a motion in probate proceedings requesting for the
approval of the deed of sale.
● To the surprise of Cancio, the widow of Gil Jr. filed a strong opposition.
● Probate court decide against Cancio.
● Court of Appeals certified to this Court since it merely involves questions of law.

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

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 2


death of the two heirs, this circumstance is now of no consequence considering that
it is beyond dispute that the properties left by Gil Sr. were inherited, first, by his widow
and, later, by the children of Gil Jr.
○ Also, the widow of Gil Jr., co-administratrix of the estate, is now estopped from
disputing the sale because she herself filed the petition in court asking for the
approval of the same sale which she now disputes.
○ An heir can sell whatever right, interest, of participation he may have in the
property under administration, under the jurisdiction of the probate court; no need
for separate action.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

48. De Guzman vs. Limcolioc

(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:

● Proceso de Guzman died without leaving a will.


○ He was first married to Agatona Santos, with 4 children Nicolasa, Apolinario, Ana
and Tomasa.
○ After the death of Agatona, he married Angela Limcolioc, with no children.
● CFI Rizal appointed Nicolasa de Guzman as judicial administratrix of the properties.
Angela Limcolioc asked that this appointment be set aside and named administratrix, on
the ground of her preference as the widow.
○ Court sustained the appointment of Nicolasa.

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.

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 3


○ This was not denied by Angela, who merely said that this did not justify the
appointment. Thus, court was justified in considering the allegations.
● Thus, the 4 children, among them Nicolasa, have more interest in the properties than
Angela, who would only be entitled, by way of usufruct, to a portion equal to that
corresponding to one of the children who has received no betterment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

49. M. Chua Kay & Co. v. Oh Tiong Keng

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:

● Oh Tiong Keng died in Sorsogon on November 9, 1932


● His widow filed a petition in the CFI of Manila for the administration of his estate
● On July 26, 1934, the estate was ordered closed, the property having been distributed to
the heirs and the bond of the administratrix having been cancelled.
● On October 31, 1934, M. Chua Kay & Co. filed a petition to reopen the intestate
proceedings of the estate of Oh Tiong Keng
● M. Chua Kay & Co. alleges that:
○ It is the creditor of Oh Tiong Keng (OTK) in the amount of P20,249.85
○ It expected that the administration of OTK's estate would be filed at Sorsogon,
inasmuch as OTK was allegedly a resident of Sorsogon at the time of his death
○ Having learned that no petition was filed, petitioner, as creditor, filed such a
petition in Sorsogon.
○ Thereafter, it discovered that the petition was filed in the CFI of Manila and
petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to present its claim.
● Wherefore, petitioner prays that the estate be reopened, the widow be re-appointed as
administratrix, or if she declines then some other person, and that his claims be heard

ISSUES:
WON the CFI of Manila had jurisdiction over the intestate proceedings
WON petitioner's is entitled to have the intestate proceedings reopened

HELD:

● 1st issue: YES

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 4


○ The record on appeal before us fails to show that any issue of jurisdiction was
raised or decided by the trial court. It shows furthermore that the petitioner-
appellant voluntarily submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the trial court when it
filed its petition in this cause praying for the reappointment of the widow as
administratrix and the reappointment of commissioners on claims and appraisal.
● 2nd issue: NO
○ The fact that petitioner relied on the promise of the widow that the latter would
pay petitioner's claim by installments is no sufficient excuse for the delay of
petitioner, as creditor, in making application for the appointment of an
administrator in Sorsogon. The rules provide:
■ "If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or
the person selected by them, be unsuitable, or if the husband or widow,
or next of kin neglect for thirty days after the death of the person to apply
for administration, or to request that administration be granted to some
other person, it may be granted to one or more of the principal creditors, if
competent and willing to serve."
○ 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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

50. Guerrero v. Teran

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.

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 5


● The lower court found that Teran, as administrator of the estate of Antonio Sanchez
Munoz, owed to Guerrero the sum of P3,447.46 with interest at 6% until the same
should be fully paid.
● Teran appealed the decision and alleged that the trial court erred in ruling that he
managed and administered the estate of Antonio Sanchez Munoz as judicial
administrator and executor.
● Moreover, he denied being responsible to Guerrero for the loans made to different
persons for different accounts and for credits against the persons mentioned in the
complaint.
● Upon examination of records, it was discovered that:
○ Teran was in fact appointed administrator of the subject estate in 1901 and
entered into a bond in the sum of 10,000 dollars, gold, for the faithful
performance of his duties as such representative of the estate of Muñoz.
○ However, in 1902, the Court of First Instance of Albay appointed Maria Munoz
Gomez (Munoz-Gomez) as guardian of Maria Manuela and Maria Sanchez
Munoz and that Munoz-Gomez gave the required bond for the faithful
performance of her duties as guardian.
○ While there are indications in the record that Teran continued to act as
administrator of the estate after appointment of Munoz-Gomez, the fact exists
that the latter was the actual representative of Maria Manuela and Maria
Sanchez Munoz in the administration of their interests in the estate of the said
Antonio Sanchez Munoz.
○ Therefore, Munoz-Gomez, as guardian and administratix of the estate of the said
minors, must be held responsible of the property belonging to the said minors
during the period she was their actual guardian.
● However, in 1906, the CFI of Albay removed Munoz-Gomez as guardian since she was
not a resident of the Philippine Islands at the time of her appointment.
● The court then removed her as guardian and appointed Feliz Samson as provisional
guardian with the required bond of P2,000.00.

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.

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 6


○ If any loss occurred to herein petitioner from March 1902 to October 1906, the
period wherein Munoz-Gomez was appointed administrator, he has a right of
action only against Munoz-Gomez as the appointed legal guardian under the law
and the administratix of the property of their estate.
○ Moreover, it was not shown from the records that the amount claimed by the
plaintiff were due as a result of the management of the estate during the time of
administration (1901-1902) by Teran, except the sum of P188.39, admitted to be
due by the defendant Teran.

● 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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

51. Philippine Trust v. Luzon Surety

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.

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 7


● The 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. The
execution or forfeiture of an administrator's bond, is deemed be a necessary part and
incident of the administration proceedings as much as its filing and the fixing of its
amount.
● Moreover, the condition of the administrator's bond in question is that Francis L. Picard
shall faithfully execute the orders and decrees of the court; that if he did so, the
obligation shall become void, otherwise it shall remain in full force and effect. In having
been established that Picard disbursed funds of the estate without authority, the
conclusion follows that he had and his surety became bound upon the terms of their
bond.
● Records show that the claims against the estate for the sum of P200.00 and P3,205.00,
respectively, were approved by the probate court but the same have remained unpaid
because of lack of funds.
● Rule 86, Section 11 does not require notice to the sureties but they may be allowed to
intervene in the settlement of the accounts of the executor or administrator if they ask for
leave to do so in due time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

52. Angeles v. Maglaya

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:

● Respondent filed a petition for letters of administration and her appointment as


administratrix of the intestate estate of Francisco M. Angeles. Respondent alleged that
Francisco died intestate leaving behind four parcels of land, a building, and property,
and that she is the sole legitimate child.
● She alleges that she and decedent’s second wife (petitioner herein) are the surviving
heirs.
● Petitioner opposed the basic petition and prayed that she, instead of respondent, be
made the administratrix of Francisco's estate.
- Petitioner alleged having married Francisco on August 7, 1948 and that
Francisco represented in their marriage contract that he was single at that time.
- Petitioner also averred that respondent could not be the daughter of Francisco
for, although she was recorded as Francisco's legitimate daughter, the
corresponding birth certificate was not signed by him.
- Petitioner likewise averred that she and Francisco had legally adopted Concesa
A. Yamat, et al.
ISSUE:

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 8


● W/N respondent is the legitimate child and should therefore be the administratrix

HELD:

● A legitimate child is a product of a valid and lawful marriage.


● There is absolutely no proof of the decedent's marriage to respondent's mother,
Genoveva Mercado. No marriage certificate or marriage contract was offered in
evidence.
● None of the four (4) witnesses respondent presented could say anything about that
supposed marriage. At best, their testimonies proved that respondent was Francisco's
daughter.
● Respondent herself undermined her very own case.
- Respondent had declared that her mother Genoveva died in 1988 implying that
when Francisco contracted marriage with petitioner Belen S. Angeles in 1948,
Genoveva and Francisco were already "spouses".
- If Genoveva Mercado and Francisco were married in 1938, it follows that the
marriage of Francisco to petitioner Belen Angeles in 1948, or prior to Genoveva's
death, would necessarily have to be bigamous, but she did not contest such.
● Respondent presented, in support of her claim of legitimacy, a copy of her Birth
Certificate dated November 23, 1939 issued by the Civil Registrar of the City of Manila.
Her birth was recorded as the legitimate child of Francisco Angeles and Genoveva
Mercado. And the word "married'" is written in the certificate to indicate the union of
Francisco and Genoveva.
- Petitioner, however, contends, citing jurisprudence, that "[I]t was error for the
Court of Appeals to have ruled . . . that [respondent's] Birth Certificate indubitably
establishes that she is the legitimate daughter of Francisco and Genoveva.
- The Birth Certificate presented was not signed by Francisco against whom
legitimate filiation is asserted. Not even by Genoveva.
- Such certificate is evidence only of the fact which gave rise to its execution: the
fact of birth of a child.
- Just like her Birth Certificate, respondent can hardly derive comfort from her
marriage contract to Atty. Maglaya and from her student and government
records which indicated or purported to show that Francisco Angeles is her
father.
- The same holds true for her wedding pictures which showed Francisco giving
respondent's hands in marriage. These papers or documents are not sufficient
evidence of filiation or recognition.
● The wedding pictures, the school and service records, and the testimony of respondent's
witnesses lend support to her claim of enjoying open and continuous possession of the
status of a child of Francisco. Unfortunately, that angle is not an issue in this case.
Respondent predicated her petition for letters of administration on her being a legitimate
child of Francisco.
● On the matter of appointment of administrator of the estate of the deceased, the
surviving spouse is preferred over the next of kin of the decedent.
- When the law speaks of "next of kin", it refers to those who are entitled to the
decedent's property; to share in the estate as distributed or, in short, an heir.
● 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.

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019 9


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

53. Tan vs. Hon. Gedorio

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:

● Gerardo Tan (Gerardo) died on 14 October 2000, leaving no will.


○ On 31 October 2001, private respondents, who are claiming to be the children of
Gerardo Tan, filed with the RTC a Petition for the issuance of letters of
administration.
■ Petitioners, claiming to be legitimate heirs of Gerardo Tan, filed an
Opposition to the Petition.
○ Private respondents then moved for the appointment of a special administrator,
■ They prayed that their attorney-in-fact, Romualdo D. Lim (Romualdo), be
appointed as the special administrator.
○ Petitioners filed an Opposition to private respondents Motion for Appointment,
arguing that
■ none of the private respondents can be appointed as the special
administrator since they are not residing in the country.
■ Romualdo does not have the same familiarity, experience or competence
as that of their co-petitioner Vilma C. Tan (Vilma) who was already acting
as de facto administratrix of his estate since his death.
○ Atty. Nuevo, the appointed commissioner ordered Vilma to: 1) deposit money in
fiduciary account; 2) deposit proceeds from sugarcane harvest of estate; 3)
submit financial reports
■ No compliance was made
○ RTC Judge Eric F. Menchavez issued an Order appointing Romualdo as special
administrator
○ Respondent Judge Francisco Gedorio (Gedorio), in his capacity as RTC
Executive Judge, issued an Order denying petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration.

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

1 Surviving Spouse, 2) Nearest of Kin, 3) Representative of Surviving Spouse of Nearest of Kin, 4)


Principal creditor; 5) Court appointee

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019


10
3. W/N the residence of private respondents is material in the appointment of their
representative 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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

54. Gonzales vs. Aguinaldo

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:

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019


11
● Parties:
○ Petitioner Beatriz Gonzales
○ Respondent judge Zoilo Aguinaldo of Makati RTC Branch 143
○ Private respondent Teresa Olbes (Petitioner’s sister)
● Respondent Judge issued an order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as a co-
administratrix. Petitioner’s MR was also denied. Thus, this petition for certiorari seeking
to annul on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
● This involves an intestate proceeding involving the estate of the deceased Dona
Ramona. Decedent is survived by her 4 children, who are her only heirs.
● The court a quo appointed petitioner and private respondent as co-administratrices of
their mother’s estate.
● While petitioner was in the United States accompanying her ailing husband who was
receiving medical treatment in that country, private respondent filed a motion to remove
petitioner 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.
● Copy of said motion was served upon petitioner's then counsel of record (who, at the
time, had been suspended by the SC from the practice of law).
● After the filing of private respondent's aforesaid motion, respondent judge issued an
order which required petitioner and the other parties to file their opposition, if any,
thereto. Only their brother opposed the removal of petitioner as co-administratrix.
● Respondent Judge cancelled the letters of administration granted to petitioner and
retained private respondent as the administratrix of the estate of the late Ramona
Gonzales. (See ruling for the lower court’s reason for removing petitioner as co-
administratrix)

ISSUE: Whether petitioner should be removed as co-administrator?

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.

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019


12
○ Administrators have such an interest in the execution of their trust as entitle them
to protection from removal without just cause. Hence, Section 2 of Rule 82 of the
Rules of Court provides the legal and specific causes authorizing the court to
remove an administrator.
● WHY LOWER COURT REMOVED PETITIONER:
○ 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 private respondent.
○ 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 private respondent 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, the date of the
questioned order.
● GROUND 1: CONFLICTS & MISUNDERSTANDINGS BETWEEN THE CO-ADMINS
○ Mere disagreements between such joint fiduciaries, without misconduct, one's
removal is not favored. Conflicts of opinion and judgment naturally, and, perhaps
inevitably, occur between persons with different interests in the same estate.
○ The SC finds of material importance the fact that 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 as an administrator. Petitioner is as interested as private
respondent and the other heirs in that the properties of the estate be duly
administered and conserved for the benefit of the heirs.
● GROUND 2: PETITIONER’S TEMPORARY ABSENCE
○ A temporary residence outside of the state, maintained for the benefit of the
health of the executors' family, is not such a removal from the state as to
necessitate his removal as executor.
○ Petitioner had never abandoned her role as co-administratrix of the estate nor
had she been remiss in the fulfillment of her duties. As a matter of fact, during
her time abroad, it appears that petitioner and private respondent maintained
correspondence through letters as to the administration of the estate. Petitioner
sent private respondent a letter addressed to Land Bank authorizing private
respondent 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.
● Moreover, it seems that the respondent judge seeks refuge in the fact tha 2 of the other
3 heirs of the estate of the deceased have opposed the retention or re-appointment of
petitioner as co-administratrix of the estate. However, 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

55. Tayag vs Tayag-Gallor (2008)

Legal wife vs. Illegitimate Child who just alleged illegitimacy

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019


13
Doctrine: Allegation of being an illegitimate child in an action for settlement of estate suffices in
proceeding with the action. It is upon the person claiming illegitimacy to prove that he/she is
acknowledged or recognised in order to prove material and direct interest in the estate of the
decedent. The action for letters of administration cannot be dismissed by failure to state cause
of action because allegation of claim of an illegitimate child is enough.

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.

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019


14
● Appellate court upheld TCs decision and said that the allegation of Felicidad that she is
an illegitimate child suffices for a cause of action without need to state that she has been
recognised.
● Petitioner asserts that a claim of filiation cannot be allowed in an action for the
settlement of decedents estate.

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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

56. Hilado vs. CA (2009)

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.

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019


15
○ On 2 August 2000, the Manila RTC issued an order appointing private
respondent as administrator of the estate of her deceased husband, and issuing
letters of administration in her favor.
● In January 2001, Julita submitted an Inventory of the Estate, Lists of Personal and Real
Properties, and Liabilities of the Estate of her deceased husband.
○ In the List of Liabilities attached to the inventory, Julita included as among the
liabilities, the above-mentioned two pending claims then being litigated before the
Bacolod City courts (amounts: P35M and 135M)
● On 24 September 2001, petitioners filed with the Manila RTC various motions and
manifestations, praying that (see Issue #2):
● On 2 January 2002, the Manila RTC issued an order denying the manifestation/motion,
on the ground that petitioners are not interested parties within the contemplation of
the Rules of Court to intervene in the intestate proceedings.
● MR denied, Petition for Certiorari with CA dismissed.
○ CA: the claims of petitioners against the decedent were in fact contingent or
expectant, as these were still pending litigation in separate proceedings before
other courts.
○ Hence, the present petition.

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.

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019


16
● Notwithstanding Section 2 of Rule 72 (suppletory application of CivPro),
intervention as set forth under Rule 19 does not extend to creditors of a decedent
whose credit is based on a contingent claim. The definition of intervention under
Rule 19 simply does not accommodate contingent claims.
○ However, even if it were declared that petitioners have no right to intervene in
accordance with Rule 19, it would not necessarily mean the disallowance of the
reliefs they had sought before the RTC since the right to intervene is not one of
those reliefs.
○ In several instances, the Rules on Special Proceedings entitle any interested
persons or any persons interested in the estate to participate in varying
capacities in the testate or intestate proceedings.
○ Petitioners cite these provisions before us, namely:
■ (1) Section 1, Rule 79, which recognizes the right of any person
interested to oppose the issuance of letters testamentary and to file a
petition for administration;
■ (2) Section 3, Rule 79, which mandates the giving of notice of hearing on
the petition for letters of administration to the known heirs, creditors, and
to any other persons believed to have interest in the estate;
■ (3) Section 1, Rule 76, which allows a person interested in the estate to
petition for the allowance of a will;
■ (4) Section 6 of Rule 87, which allows an individual interested in the
estate of the deceased to complain to the court of the concealment,
embezzlement, or conveyance of any asset of the decedent, or of
evidence of the decedents title or interest therein;
■ (5) Section 10 of Rule 85, which requires notice of the time and place of
the examination and allowance of the Administrators account to persons
interested;
■ (6) Section 7(b) of Rule 89, which requires the court to give notice to the
persons interested before it may hear and grant a petition seeking the
disposition or encumbrance of the properties of the estate; and
■ (7) Section 1, Rule 90, which allows any person interested in the estate to
petition for an order for the distribution of the residue of the estate of the
decedent, after all obligations are either satisfied or provided for.

● 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

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019


17
Case No. 11178, whereas the other civil case was already pending
review before this Court at the time of Benedictos death.

● Evidently, the merits of petitioners claims against Benedicto are to be settled in


the civil cases where they were raised, and not in the intestate proceedings.
○ In the event the claims for damages of petitioners are granted, they would have
the right to enforce the judgment against the estate.

● 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.

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019


18
● Nonetheless, in the instances that the Rules on Special Proceedings do require notice to
any or all interested parties the petitioners as interested parties will be entitled to such
notice.
○ The instances when notice has to be given to interested parties are provided in:
■ (1) Sec. 10, Rule 85 in reference to the time and place of examining and
allowing the account of the executor or administrator;
■ (2) Sec. 7(b) of Rule 89 concerning the petition to authorize the executor
or administrator to sell personal estate, or to sell, mortgage or otherwise
encumber real estates; and;
■ (3) Sec. 1, Rule 90 regarding the hearing for the application for an order
for distribution of the estate residue. After all, even the administratrix has
acknowledged in her submitted inventory, the existence of the pending
cases filed by the petitioners.

Reliefs #2 and #3:


● Section 1 of Rule 83 requires the administrator to return to the court a true inventory and
appraisal of all the real and personal estate of the deceased within three (3) months from
appointment, while Section 8 of Rule 85 requires the administrator to render an account
of his administration within one (1) year from receipt of the letters testamentary or of
administration.
○ We do not doubt that there are reliefs available to compel an administrator to
perform either duty, but a person whose claim against the estate is still
contingent is not the party entitled to do so.
○ Still, even if the administrator did delay in the performance of these duties in the
context of dissipating the assets of the estate, there are protections enforced and
available under Rule 88 to protect the interests of those with contingent claims
against the estate.

● 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.

● WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED,


○ subject to the qualification that petitioners, as persons interested in the
intestate estate of Roberto Benedicto, are entitled to such notices and
rights as provided for such interested persons in the Rules on Settlement
of Estates of Deceased Persons under the Rules on Special Proceedings.
No pronouncements as to costs.

NOTE: sorry guys and hirap paikliin.

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019


19
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019


20
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

58. Heirs of Castillo v Lacuata

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

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019


21
person to the estate of Crisanta, nonetheless, private respondent is undeniably
entitled to the administration of the said estate because she is an heir of her
husband Roberto, whose estate is the former estate of his adopting mother
Crisanta.
● 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. As such officer, he is subject to the supervision and control of the probate
court and is expected to work for the best interests of the entire estate, especially its
smooth administration and earliest settlement.
● The basis for appointing a special administrator under the Rules is broad enough to
include any cause or reason for the delay in granting letters testamentary or of
administration 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. Likewise, when from any cause general administration
cannot be immediately granted, a special administrator may be appointed to collect and
preserve the property of the deceased (Section 1, Rule 80 of the Revised Rules of
Court)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

60. Rioferio v. CA

Catchy Phrase: Kung wala pa siya, nandito naman ako.

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.

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019


22
Alfonso Clyde III filed a Petition for Letters of Administration before RTC Angeles, praying
that letters of administration encompassing the estate of Alfonso Jr. be issued to him.

On December 4, 1995, respondents filed Complaint for the Annulment/Rescission of Extra


Judicial Settlement with Quitclaim, Real Estate Mortgage and Cancellation of TCTs and Other
Related Documents with Damages against petitioners, the Rural Bank of Mangaldan, Inc. and
the RD of Dagupan City before RTC Dagupan.

In their answer, petitioner said property subject of contested deed of extra-judicial


settlement pertained to properties originally belonging to the parents of Teodora and that titles
thereof were delivered to her as advance inheritance but decedent had managed to register
them in his name. Also raised affirmative defense that respondents are not real parties-in-
interest but rather the Estate of Alfonso O. Orfinada, Jr. in view of pendency of administration
proceedings. Petitioners filed motion to set the case for preliminary hearing on their affirmative
defense that the proper party to bring the action is the estate of the decedent and not the
respondents

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.

CA: no grave abuse of discretion. MR denied.

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.

2. Even if administration proceedings have already been commenced, the heirs


may still bring the suit if an administrator has not yet been appointed

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

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019


23
appointment of an administrator. In such instances, the heirs cannot be expected to
wait for the appointment of an administrator; then wait further to see if the administrator
appointed would care enough to file a suit to protect the rights and the interests of the
deceased; and in the meantime do nothing while the rights and the properties of the
decedent are violated or dissipated.

Even if there is an appointed administrator, jurisprudence recognizes two exceptions,


1. if the executor or administrator is unwilling or refuses to bring suit
2. when the administrator is alleged to have participated in the act complained
[
of and he is made a party defendant.

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.

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019


24
HELD:
● Subject property is part of an estate and subject to intestate proceedings before the
courts.
● Rule 84, Sec. 2 of ROC: administrator may only deliver properties of the estate to the
heirs upon order of the Court.
● Rule 90, Sec. 1 of ROC: the properties of the estate shall only be distributed after the
payment of the debts, funeral charges, and other expenses against the estate, except
when authorized by the Court.
● Verily, 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.
● In the instant case, the purported authority of Nelia Silverio-Dee, which she allegedly
secured from Ricardo Silverio, Sr., was never approved by the probate court. She,
therefore, never had any real interest in the property in controversy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BATCH 3 - SPECPRO DIGESTS - #SarilingSikap2019


25

You might also like