OZAETA VS.

PECSON probate of his will which was granted by Judge

Fernando V. Gorospe on February 16, 1996. Since
FACTS: he had no compulsory heirs, he named Arturo de
Santos Foundation, Inc. as the sole legatee and
Carlos Palanca died leaving a will, appointing devisee of all his properties amounting to not less
petitioner Ozaeta, being a former associate justice than 2 million pesos and named private
of SC, a close friend of his wife and sponsor to respondent Pacita de los Reyes Philips as the
their marriage, as executrix.
hisexecutor should Gen. Roxas fails to !ualif" Since
Gen. Roxas already died, Ozaeta petition the court On February 26, 1996, Dr. Arturo de Santos died.
for the probate of the will of Carlos and pray" he be On April 3, 1996, the petitioner Octavio S. Maloles
appointed as special administrator. The will was II filed a motion for intervention. He claimed that,
allowed, but some of the heirs opposed. Thus as the only child of Alicia de Santos (testators
pendingappeal, the court appointed Phil. Trust Ban sister) and Octavio L. Maloles, Sr., he was the sole
k as special administrator but later on itwithdrew o full-blooded nephew and nearest of kin of Dr. de
n ground of incompatibility of interest. Petitioner O Santos and also alleged that he was a creditor of
zaeta reiterate hisappointment as special the testator. He prayed for the reconsideration of
administrator but the court refused and instead the order allowing the will and the issuance of
appoint one of the heirs and the BPI. Petitioner letters of administration in his name.
then filed the present petition.
However, petitioners petition was denied. Hence,
ISSUE: WON probate court committed grave abuse this petition.
of discretion when it appointed special
administrator other than the name executor, while ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner, being a
pending appeal. creditor of the late Dr. Arturo de Santos, has a
right to intervene and oppose the petition for
issuance of letters testamentary filed by the
HELD:
respondent.

Court favor Ozaeta and held that while the rule

HELD:
grant discretion to the probate court to appoint or
not a special administrator and the choice of
person lies within its power, such discretion No. The petitioner herein is not an heir or legatee
should not be whimsical and partial but one that is under the will of the decedent Arturo de Santos.
reasonable, logical and in accordance with the Neither is he a compulsory heir of the latter. As the
fundamental legal principle of justice.1 probate only and nearest collateral relative of the decedent,
court cannot make a personal likes and dislikes he can inherit from the latter only in case of
prevail over his judgment 2. Since the choice of intestacy. Since the decedent has left a will which
executor is a precious prerogative of testator has already been probated and disposes of all his
according to his desire to appoint & of his properties the petitioner can inherit only if the said
confidence who can he trust 2 carry out his will is annulled. His interest in the decedents
wishes, the appointment and issuance of letters estate is, therefore, not direct or immediate. In
must be made as soon as practicable. In the case Ozaeta v. Pecson:
at bar, since will has already been admitted to
probate and the only reason for suspending The choice of his executor is a precious
petitioners appointment as executor and instead prerogative of a testator, a necessary concomitant
appoint special administrator is a technical one, of his right to dispose of his property in the
unreasonable and would further delay the manner he wishes. It is natural that the testator
disposition causing unnecessary" expense. should desire to appoint one of his confidence, one
who can be trusted to carry out his wishes in the
disposal of his estate. The curtailment of this right
OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II, petitioner, vs. COURT
may be considered a curtailment of the right to
OF APPEALS, HON. FERNANDO V. GOROSPE, dispose.
JR., in his Official Capacity as Presiding Judge
of RTC-Makati, Branch 61, and PACITA Only if the appointed executor is incompetent,
PHILLIPS as the alleged executrix of the alleged refuses the trust, or fails to give bond may the
will of the late Dr. Arturo de court appoint other persons to administer the
Santos, respondents. estate. None of these circumstances is present in
this case.

Facts: Thus, petition was denied and the decision of the

Court of Appeals was affirmed.
On July 20, 1995, Dr. Arturo de Santos, Filipino
and a resident of Makati City, filed a petition for ------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria C. Tayag vs. Felicidad A. Tayag-Gallor action to compel recognition but also by proof that
she had been voluntarily acknowledged.
FACTS : Respondent was yet to show her proof of filiation
because of petitioners opposition. So there is no
Respondent, Tayag-Gallor or TG, filed a petition for way yet to determine if her petition is actually one
the issuance of letters of administration over the to compel recognition or whether she has a
estate of Ismael Tayag. Claiming she is 1 of 3 material and direct interest to maintain the suit.
illegitimate children of Ismael Tayag, Ismael Tayag So, the allegation that respondent is an illegitimate
was married to Victoria Tayag, petitioner but they child suffices even without stating that she has
didnt have any children of their own. Later on been recognized or acknowledged.
Ismael died intestate, leaving behind 2 lots and one This petition by petitioner is DENIED.
motor vehicle, both in possession of petitioner. The
petitioner promised respondent and her brothers [G.R. No. 39796. March 9, 1934.]
100K each as their share in the proceeds of the
sale of the motor vehicle but she only gave half. In the matter of the estate of the deceased
The respondent alleged that petitioner intends to Francisco Varela Calderon. ANTONIO
dispose of the properties of Ismael to the GUTIERREZ DEL CAMPO, administrator-
respondents prejudice. Petitioner opposed this
appellee, v. MIGUEL VARELA CALDERON ET
petition of TG asserting that the properties were
AL., Oppositors-Appellants.
purchased by her using her own money; she even
denied all petitioners allegation. The latter also
filed for dismissal for failure to state a cause of Avelino, Yatco & Samaniego for Appellants.
action. Petitioner reiterated that she is the sole
owner of the properties by presenting TCTs. She Eduardo Gutierrez Repide for Appellee.
also averred that it was necessary for respondent
to show proof that she was acknowledged and SYLLABUS
recognized by Ismael Tayag. There being no such
allegation, the action becomes one to compel 1. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION; RIGHT OF
recognition. TESTATOR WITHOUT FORCED HEIRS TO
CA ruled that the allegation, without the need to DISPOSE FREELY OF HIS PROPERTY;
state that she had been recognized or INTERVENTION BY THOSE WHO ARE NOT
acknowledged. Petitioner came to the SC and FORCED HEIRS. The appellants in this case are
asserts that respondent should not be allowed to not forced heirs of the deceased and therefore have
prove her filiation in the settlement of Ismaels no right to any part of the property left by the
estate because the claim of filiation should not be testator, once he had disposed of the same by will.
allowed to be proved in an action for settlement of If any of them were forced heirs they would be
an estate. entitled to intervene in this case and protect their
interest in so far as they may have been prejudiced
ISSUE: Whether respondents petition for the by the will. It is evident therefore that they have
issuance of letters of administration sufficiently not been injured or prejudiced in any manner
states a cause of action considering that she whatsoever. Only forced heirs whose rights have
merely alleged she is an illegitimate child? been prejudiced have a right to intervene in a case
of this character.
RULING : YES.
Petition for issuance of letters of administration
must be filed by an interested person. An DECISION
interested party is one who would be benefited by
the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim
against the estate, such as a creditor. The interest GODDARD, J.:
must be material and direct.
The petition for the issuance is a suit for the
settlement of the intestate of Ismael Tayag. The The Court of First Instance of Manila issued, in
right of respondent to maintain such as a suit is this case, the following
dependent on whether she is entitled to orders:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
successional rights as an illegitimate child which
may be established through voluntary or "Llamado a vista el proyecto de particion y
compulsory recognition. adjudicacion presentado pro el administrador
Petitioners ground is essentially based on her judicial, este, por medio de su abogado, se opuso a
contention that by Ismaels death, respondent can que se considere la oposicion interpuesta por
no longer establish her filiation. However, petitioner Miguel Varela Calderon, Angel Varela Calderon,
overlooked the fact that respondents successional Jesus Varela Calderon, Trinidad Varela Calderon,
rights may be established not just by judicial Paula Varela Calderon, Pilar Valera Calderon y
Maria Valera Calderon, a la aprobacion de dicho
proyecto y a que se admita o reciba cualquiera impuesto sobre herencia y proceda a la entrega de
prueba que los mencionados opositores desearen los bienes adjudicados a los herederos instituidos
presentar en apoyo de su oposicion, bajo el en el testamento conforme al proyecto de particion
fundamento de que los mismos no son herederos y adjudicacion de bienes aqui aprobado, dando
forzosos del finado Dr. Francisco Valera Calderon y cuenta dentro del mismo plazo del cumplimiento
no tienen, por tal motivo, ningun interes o do los terminos de esta orden, a fin de que pueda
participacion en los bienes dejados por dicho ordenarse el cierre y archivo definitivo de este
finado y de los cuales este ha dispuesto por expediente. Asi se ordena.
testamento que ha sido legalizado y aprobado por
este Juzgado, cuya decision ha sido confirmada por "Manila, I. F., 29 de noviembre de 1932.
el Tribunal Supremo en apelacion.
"E. P. REVILLA
"Habiendo la representacion tanto del
administrador judicial como de los opositores "Juez"
admitido como hechos indiscutibles que el finado
Dr. Francisco Valera Calderon fallecio soltero y sin The appellants duly excepted to both of these
dejar ningun ascendiente y que los opositores son orders and upon appeal to this court make the
hermanos legitimos del mismo, es manifiesto que following assignments of
los mencionados opositores no tienen la condicion error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
de herederos forzosos (art. 807, Codigo Civil) y, por
tanto, no tienen derecho a intervenir en la "I. The trial court erred in refusing to admit and to
consideracion de bienes, ni impugnar la institucion consider the opposition filed by the oppositors-
de herederos hecha por el citado finado en su appellants to the approval of the project of
testamento, toda vez que este, por ser soltero y no partition, not being the forced heirs of the late
tener herederos forzosos, podia disponer por Francisco Varela Calderon, and refused them to
testamento de todos sus bienes o de parte de ellos present their proofs in support of their contention.
en favor de cualquiera persona que tenga
capacidad para adquirirlos (art. 763, Codigo Civil). "II. The trial court erred in approving the partition
and adjudication of the properties of the late
"Por tanto, SE DESESTIMA la oposicion Francisco Varela Calderon in favor of the supposed
interpuesta por los mencionados opositores y se heirs mentioned in the probated will Exhibit B,
declara que estos no tienen derecho a intervenir en disregarding completely the rights of the
la consideracion del proyecto de particion y oppositors-appellants to inherit all the said
adjudicacion de los bienes del finado Dr. Francisco properties."cralaw virtua1aw library
Valera Calderon, la cual queda aplazada para el dia
29 de noviembre de 1932, a las 8:30 a. m. Asi se The judicial administrator of the estate of
ordena. Francisco Varela Calderon, deceased, submitted a
project of partition for the approval of the lower
"Asi se ordena. court. The appellants filed an opposition to the
approval of said project. The administrator objected
"Manila, noviembre 17, 1932. to the intervention of the appellants in this case.

"E. P. REVILLA Qure: Did the trial court err in refusing to allow
the appellants to intervene? If this question is
"Juez" answered in the affirmative there will be no
necessity for considering the second assignment of
"Visto el proyecto de particion y adjudicacion de error.
beines relictos del finado Don Francisco Valera
Calderon presentado por el administrador de esta It is admitted that Francisco Varela Calderon was a
testamentaria el 10 de noviembre de 1932; bachelor, a citizen of the Philippine Islands, and at
examinado el mismo y apareciendo que se halla de the time he made his will was residing temporarily
acuerdo con las disposiciones contenidas en el in France and that at the time of his death he left
testamento otorgado por el finado y debidamente no ascendants. The appellants are brothers and
legalizado por este Juzgado; y no existiendo sisters of full blood of the deceased and therefore
motivos ni razones que se opongan a su they are not his forced heirs. Article 763 of the
aprobacion; Civil Code reads: "Any person who has no forced
heirs may dispose by will of all his property or any
"Por la presente, se aprueba el referido proyecto de part of it in favor of any person qualified to acquire
particion y adjudicacion de bienes, el cual se hace it. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
parte integrante de esta orden.
The appellants contend that the beneficiaries
"Se requiere al administrador que, dentro del plazo under the will of Francisco Varela Calderon are
de diez dias a partir de la fecha en que fuere illegitimate children and that they are not qualified
notificado de esta orden, pague el correspondiente to inherit from the deceased. This court has held in
Barrios v. Enriquez (52 Phil., 509), that "while it is reconocimiento al que no tenga el caracter de
true that article 845 of the Civil Code provides that heredero forzoso de la persona que hizo aquel."
illegitimate children who have not the status of (Jurisprudencia Civil, Tomo 128, pags. 1087 y
natural children shall be entitled to support only. 1088.)
and therefore cannot demand anything more of
those bound by law to support them, it does not In that case the court commented as
prohibit said illegitimate children from receiving, follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
nor their parents from giving them, something
more than support, so long as the legitimate "Considerando que la facultad de impugnar la
children are not prejudiced. If the law permits a legitimacion y el reconocimiento otorgados a favor
testator to dispose of the free third of his de hijos que no tengan la condicion legal de
hereditary estate in favor of a stranger (art. 808 of naturales, consignada en los articulos 128 y 138
the Civil Code), there is no legal, moral or social del Codigo Civil, de modo claro y preciso se
reason to prevent him from making over that third establece y confiere a los que se crean perjudicados
to his illegitimate son who has not the status of a o realmente lo hayan sido en sus derechos, y
natural son. On the contrary, by reason of blood, atendido que la actora asienta la accion ejercitada
the son, although illegitimate, has a preferential y funda su demanda en el hecho de ser sobrina
right over a stranger unless by his behavior he has carnal del difunto D. Anastasio Martin, basta
become unworthy of such consideration."cralaw tomar en cuenta este parentesco, base primordial
virtua1aw library de la presente litis, para diducir como indudable
consecuencia, que no siendo Doa Manuela de
Manresa commenting on article 763 of the Civil Pablo Martin heredera forzosa de su citado tio el
Code says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph testador fallecido, no la asiste derecho a oponerse a
lo por aquel dispuesto." (Jurisprudencia Civil,
"Como expusimos al comentar los articulos 752 al Tomo 128, pags. 1094, 1095.)
754, discuten los autores si los hijos naturales no
reconocidos pueden ser instituidos herederos por Article 806 of the Civil Code reads: "The legitime is
sus padres en el todo o parte de la herencia de that part of his property of which the testator can
libre disposicion, por entender algunos que no not dispose because the law has reserved it for
tienen capacidad para adquirir por testamento, y el certain heirs, called, on that account, force
articulo 763 exige expresamente esa capacidad. No heirs."cralaw virtua1aw library
creemos que exista fundamento alguno serio que
pueda motivar esa duda: los hijos naturales no As stated above the appellants in this case are not
reconocidos, aun los adulterinos y sacrilegos, no forced heirs of the deceased and therefore have no
tienen incapacidad alguna para adquirir, ni puede right to any part of the property left by the testator,
sealarse articulo alguno que la establezca; no once he had disposed of the same by will. If any of
tienen derecho a legitima, segun el articulo 845, them were forced heirs they would be entitled to
esto es todo. En cuanto a su capacidad para intervene in this case and protect their interest in
adquirir en general o por testamento la parte en su so far as they may have been prejudiced by the
caso, de libre disposicion, los hijos naturales no will. It is evident therefore that they have not been
reconocidos, no son ante la ley de peor condicion injured or prejudiced in any manner whatsoever.
que las personas extraas." (Comentarios al Codigo Only forced heirs whose rights have been
Civil Espaol, por Manresa, Tomo 6, pag. 94, prejudiced have a right to intervene in a case of
edicion 5. a). this character.

From the above citations it is apparent that the For the foregoing reasons no error was committed
beneficiaries under the will of Francisco Varela by the lower court in the orders appealed from.
Calderon, granting that they are illegitimate Both orders are affirmed with costs against the
children, are not incapacitated to take property appellants.
under the will of their father. ------------------------------------------------------------

Vda. De Chua v. CA
In a decision of the Supreme Court of Spain of
December 24, 1913, it was FACTS:
held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
Roberto Lim Chua lived out of wedlock with private
respondent Florita Vallejo and out of this union the
"Que la facultad de impugnar la legitimacion y el
couple begot 2 illegitimate children. Sometime
reconocimiento otorgados a favor de hijos que no
after, Roberto Chua died intestate in Davao City.
tengan la condicion legal de naturales, consignada
Private respondent Florita then filed with the RTC
en los articulos 128 y 138 del Codigo Civil, de
of Cotabato a Petition for the Declaration of
modo claro y preciso se establece y confiere a los
Heirship, Guardianship over the Two Minors and
que se crean perjudicados o realmente lo hayan
the Issuance of Letters Administration. The court
sido en sus derechos:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
issued an order setting the hearing of the petition
and directed that notice thereof be published.
"Que no asiste derecho para oponerse al
Petitioner Vda. De. Chua, representing herself to be (2) NO. Petitioner has no legal standing to file the
the surviving spouse of the deceased, moved to motion to dismiss as she is not related to the
dismiss on the ground of improper venue. Private deceased, nor does she have any interest in his
respondent Florita opposed and later amended her estate as creditor or otherwise. The Rules are
petition in order that the case title can properly explicit on who may do so. Only an interested
capture the averments in the pleadings; hence the person may oppose the petition for issuance of
petition title now includes Settlement of the letters of administration. An interested person is
Intestate Estate of Deceased which contains one who would be benefited by the estate such as
exactly the same prayers as the original petition. an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate,
Petitioner opposed this but was dismissed by the such as a creditor; his interest is material and
trial court. Petitioner likewise moved that the direct, and not one that is only indirect or
letters of administration issued to respondent contingent. Petitioner was not able to prove her
Florita be recalled and issued to her instead. RTC status as the surviving wife of the decedent. The
denied. CA affirmed. Petitioner now argues that the best proof of marriage between man and wife is a
original petition failed to allege and state the marriage contract which Antonietta Chua failed to
jurisdictional facts required under the Rules of produce. The lower court correctly disregarded the
Court in petitions for administration of a photostat copy of the marriage certificate which
decedents estate. she presented, this being a violation of the best
evidence rule, together with other worthless pieces
ISSUES:
of evidence.
(1) Whether or not the petition failed to allege the VILMA C. TAN, GERARDO "JAKE" TAN and
required jurisdictional facts. GERALDINE TAN, REPRESENTED BY EDUARDO
(2) Whether or not petitioner has legal standing to NIERRAS, Petitioners,
oppose the petition. vs.
RULING: THE HON. FRANCISCO C. GEDORIO, JR., IN HIS
CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE
(1) NO. The title alone of the original petition REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 12, ORMOC
clearly shows that the petition is one which
CITY, ROGELIO LIM SUGA and HELEN TAN
includes the issuance of letters of administration.
RACOMA, REPRESENTED BY ROMUALDO LIM,
The title of said petition reads: IN RE: PETITION
FOR DECLARATION OF HEIRSHIPS, Respondents.
GUARDIANSHIP OVER THE PERSON AND
PROPERTIES OF MINORS ROBERTO ALONZO FACTS:
AND RUDYARD ALONZO, all surnamed CHUA and Upon the death of Gerardo Tan on Oct. 14, 2000,
ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION. private respondents Rogelo Lim Suga and Helen
The original petition also contains the Tan Racoma, who were claiming to be the children
jurisdictional facts required in a petition for the of the decedent moved for the appointment of their
issuance of letters of administration under Section attorney-in-fact, Romualdo Lim as special
2, Rule 79 of the Rules of Court. The jurisdictional administrator. This was opposed by the petitioner
facts required in a petition for issuance of letters of Vilma Tan, Jake Tan and Geraldine Tan, claiming
administration are: (1) the death of the testator; (2) that none of the respondents can be appointed
residence at the time of death in the province since they are not residing in the country, that
where the probate court is located; and (3) if the Romualdo does not have the same competence as
decedent was a non-resident, the fact of being a Vilma Tan who was already acting as the de facto
resident of a foreign country and that the decedent administratrix of the estate, and that the nearest of
has left an estate in the province where the court is kin, being the legitmate children, is preferred in
sitting. the choice of administrator (claiming that the
respondent were illegitmate children).
While paragraph 4 of the original petition stating:
However, upon failure of Vilma to follow a court
(4) That Roberto Lim Chua, father of the above
directive to account for the income of theestate, the
mentioned minors, died intestate on May 28, 1992
court granted Romualdo's appointment as special
in Davao City. failed to indicate the residence of
administrator.Petitioners appealed to the Court of
the deceased at the time of his death, the omission
Appeals and was denied, hence the petition for
was cured by the amended petitions wherein the
review on certiorari.
same paragraph now reads: (4) That Roberto Lim
Chua, father of the abovementioned minors is a
ISSUE: Whether or not the court violated Sec. 6,
resident of Cotabato City and died intestate on May
Rule 78 of the Rules of Court in their selection of a
28, 1992 at Davao City. All told the original
special administrator.
petition alleged substantially all the facts required
to be stated in the petition for letters of
RULING:
administration. Consequently, there was no need to
In the present case, the private respondents were
publish the amended petition as petitioner would
constrained to move for the appointment of a
insist in her second assignment of errors.
special administrator due to the delay caused by
the failure of petitioner Vilma to comply with the
directives of the court-appointed commissioner. It Erlinda as administratrix together with Renato as
would certainly be unjust if petitioner Vilma were special co-administrator.
still appointed special administratix, when the Meanwhile, the heirs of Leonardo filed a motion for
necessity of appointing one has been brought an inventory and accounting. On the other hand,
about by her defiance of the lawful orders of the Renato and Erlinda filed a motion for exemption to
RTC or its appointed officials file administrators bond. Subsequently, the heirs
This Court has consistently ruled that the order of of Leonardo filed a motion to revoke the special
preference in the appointment of a regular administration and to proceed to judicial partition
administrator as provided in the afore-quoted or appointment of regular administrator. The
provision does not apply to the selection of a court, without resolving first on the said motion of
special administrator The preference under Section the special administrators, ruled in favor of the
6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court for the next of kin heirs of Leonardo when it issued an order revoking
refers to the appointment of a regular the joint special administration of Renato and
administrator, and not of a special administrator, Erlinda on the ground of their failure to post the
as the appointment of the latter lies entirely in the required bond, and the lack of submission of
discretion of the court, and is not appealable. inventory and accounting of the estate.
Not being appealable, the only remedy against the Finally, Renato and Erlinda filed a petition for
appointment of a special administrator is Certiorari certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which was the ground of grave abuse of discretion on the part
what petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals. of the court in declaring them to have failed in
Certiorari, however, requires nothing less than their obligation as special administrators, when in
grave abuse of discretion, a term which implies truth they are still waiting for resolution of their
such capricious and whimsical exercise of motion for exemption of bond, and in appointing
judgment which is equivalent to an excess or lack Melinda, a mere granddaughter of the deceased
of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be so spouses, as regular administratrix instead of them
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a as children and next of kin of the decedents.
positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of ISSUES: (1) WON the court is justified to appoint
law. joint special administrators.
OCAMPO v. OCAMPO (2) WON a special administrator is an
agent of the party suggesting the appointment.
FACTS: (3) WON the appointment or removal of
On January 23, 2004, Leonardo Ocampo died special administrator is an interlocutory order.
intestate and was survived by his wife Dalisay and
children. The decedents parents, Spouses Vicente HELD: (1) Yes. Inasmuch as there was a
and Maxima Ocampo, who died ahead of him, were disagreement as to who should be appointed as
survived by Leonardos siblings, Renato and administrator of the estate of Vicente and Maxima,
Erlinda, who are all legitimate and only heirs of the the RTC, acting as a probate court, deemed it wise
spouses, who left several properties in Binan, to appoint joint special administrators pending the
Laguna with no will and no debts. determination of the person or persons to whom
Subsequently, the heirs of Leonardo initiated twin letters of administration may be issued. The RTC
intestate estate proceedings of the estate of Sps. was justified in doing so considering that such
Vicente and Maxima Ocampo and that of Leonardo disagreement caused undue delay in the issuance
Ocampo before the RTC Laguna alleging among of letters of administration, pursuant to Section 1
others that Renato and Erlinda took possession of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.
and control of the remaining properties to the (2) No. When a special administrator is
exclusion of the heirs of Leonardo with prayer for appointed, he or she is not regarded as an agent or
the appointment of an administrator. representative of the parties suggesting the
Renato and Erlinda filed an opposition contending appointment. The principal object of the
that the petition was defective not only because it appointment of a temporary administrator is to
sought settlement of two estates but that the estate preserve the estate until it can pass to the hands of
of Leonardo has yet to be determined by the court. a person fully authorized to administer it for the
In their counter-petition, they prayed that they be benefit of creditors and heirs, pursuant to Section
both appointed as special joint administrators of 2 of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, which provides,
the estate of Sps. Vicente and Maxima. to wit:
Consequently, the court appointed the surviving SEC. 2. Powers and duties of special admi
spouse Dalisay, and the brother of Leonardo, administrator shall take possession and ch
Renato as special joint administrators of the estate rights, credits, and estate of the deceased a
of the spouses. the executor or administrator afterwards
purpose may commence and maintain suits
After considering the MR of Renato and Erlinda, in sell only such perishable and other property
which they assailed the incompetence of Dalisay, A special administrator shall not be liable
and raised the issue of being next of kin of the deceased unless so ordered by
decedents, the court substituted Dalisay with
 (3) Yes. The appointment or removal of guardian. Diosdado also reasoned that Parreo is a
special administrators, being discretionary, is thus mere niece, a collateral relative, of Engracia
interlocutory and may be assailed through a Manungas, while he is the illegitimate son of
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Florentino Manungas.
Court.
DIOSDADO MANUNGAS VS. MARGRITA AVILA
LORETO AND FLORENCIA AVILA PARREO ISSUE:
W/N Diosdado has the right to be appointed as
FACTS: Special Administrator of the Estate of Engracia
Manungas.
Engracia Manungas was the wife of Florentino
HELD:
Manungas. They had no children. Instead, they
adopted Samuel David Avila (Avila). Florentino It must be remembered that the estate of
Manungas died intestate on May 29, 1977, Florentino Manungas was already the subject of
while Samuel Avila predeceased his adoptive intestate proceedings that have long been
mother. Avila was survived by his wife Sarah terminated with the proceeds distributed to the
Abarte Vda. de Manungas. heirs with the issuance of a Decree of Final
Distribution. With the termination of the intestate
Thereafter, Engracia Manungas filed a Motion for estate proceedings of Florentino Manungas,
Partition of Estate on March 31, 1980 in the Diosdado, as an illegitimate heir of Florentino
intestate estate proceedings of Florentino Manungas, is still not an heir of Engracia
Manungas, of which she was the administratrix. Manungas and is not entitled to receive any part of
There, she stated that there are no other legal and the Estate of Manungas.
compulsory heirs of Florentino Manungas except
for herself, Samuel Avila and a Ramon Manungas The trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion
whom she acknowledged as the natural son of in appointing Diosdado as special administrator of
Florentino Manungas. There was no mention about the Estate of Engracia Manungas. The CA correctly
Diosdado, being the illegitimate son of Florentino. set aside the November 4, 2002 Order of the RTC.

Meanwhile, Samuel Avilas widow, Sarah executed a Consequently, with the setting aside of the
Waiver of Rights and Participation, renouncing her November 4, 2002 Order of the trial court,
rights over the separate property of her husband in reversing its May 15, 2002 Order and appointing
favor of Engracia Manungas. Diosdado as the special administrator of Engracia
Manungas estate, the May 15, 2002 Order is
Thereafter, a Decree of Final Distribution was necessarily reinstated and Parreos appointment as
issued in the intestate estate proceedings of special administrator is revived.
Florentino Manungas distributing the properties to
Engracia Manungas and Ramon Manungas, the PACUDAN
surviving heirs. A certain Diosdado Manungas 9. Pijuan v. Vda. De Guvera, GR L-21917, nov 29,
appeared claiming that he is an illegitimate heir of 1966
Florentino.
HEIRS OF BELINDA DAHLIA G.R. No. 162934
On October 25, 1995, the RTC, Branch 4 A. CASTILLO, namely, BENA
in Panabo City, appointed Florencia Avila Parreo, JEAN, DANIEL, MELCHOR, Present:
the niece of Engracia Manungas, as the Judicial
MICHAEL and DANIBEL, all
Guardian of the properties and person of her
surnamed CASTILLO, PUNO, J., Chairman,
incompetent aunt. Engracia died and eventually
Petitioners, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
the subject of the intestate proceedings is her
estate o was in question. CALLEJO, SR.,
TINGA, and
Diosdado filed a Motion for Reconsideration with a - versus - CHICO-NAZARIO,* JJ.
Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and FACTS
Preliminary Injunction. In his motion, Diosdado
argued that Parreos appointment as special Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel, wife of Lorenzo B.
administrator of the Estate of Manungas was by Almoradie, died in Malabon City, Metro Manila,
virtue of her being the judicial guardian of the died and left a sizeable property.
latter but which relation ceased upon Engracia
Manungas death, concluding that her appointment Crisantas mother, Crisanta Santiago Vda. de
as special administrator was without basis. He Yanga, commenced an intestate proceeding in
added that Parreo was not fit to become a special (RTC) of Malabon City, Branch 72, docketed as
administrator having already been fined by the Spec. Proc. No. 192-MN alleging that her daughter
court for failing to render a timely accounting of died intestate and that such estate was being
Engracia Manungas property as her judicial managed by her wastrel and incompetent son-in-
law, Lorenzo, and by two other equally incompetent
persons. She prayed that letters of administration Gabriel nor shown any particular qualification to
be issued to her son, Mariano Yanga, Jr., also the act as administratrix of the estate.
brother of the deceased, and that she be awarded
her share of the estate. However, the RTC Mariano Yanga, Jr.s appeal was dismissed and
appointed Lorenzo as administrator. Dolores was appointed as special administratrix
upon a bond ofP200,000.00. The probate court
The marriage between Crisanta and Lorenzo was merely noted the motion for substitution filed by
declared void for being bigamous. Lorenzo was as the heirs of Belinda, stating that they were mere
administrator and Mariano, Jr. was appointed. strangers to the case and that their cause could
better be ventilated in a separate proceeding.
One Belinda Castillo, claimed to be Lorenzo and
Crisantas only legitimate child and filed a motion According to the trial court, even assuming that
for intervention resolution of which was held movant Dolores L. Gabriels lawful relationship with
abeyance due to some incidents in CA. petitioner, and corollarily with the decedent, was
not proven, the stringent rules regarding the order
On the other hand, Roberto Y. Gabriel, the legally of preference in the appointment of an
adopted son of Crisanta Y. Gabriel, filed a petition Administrator does not find application in the
for probate of an alleged will and for the issuance instant case for what is at stake here is the
of letters testamentary in his favor docketed as appointment of a Special Administrator, the reason
Spec. Proc. No. 211-MN. He alleged that he for the relaxation of the rules regarding the
discovered his mothers will in which he was appointment of a Special Administrator is the
instituted as the sole heir of the testatrix, and nature of its position, being merely temporary and
designated as alternate executor for the named will subsist only until a regular administrator or
executor therein, Francisco S. Yanga, a brother of executor is appointed.
Crisanta, who had predeceased the latter sometime
in 1985 or 1986. The heirs of Belinda moved to reconsider which
was denied. The CA affirmed the RTCs decision,
Belinda Castillo died. hence this petition.

The two (2) special proceedings were consolidated. ISSUE: Whether or not the appointment of
Spec. Proc. No. 192-MN was dismissed. Mariano Dolores as special administratrix was proper?
Yanga, Jr. questioned the dismissal before the CA.
The petition is without merit.
The probate court appointed Roberto Y. Gabriel as The ruling of the CA is correct. The Court has
special administrator of his mothers estate. repeatedly held that the appointment of a special
administrator lies in the sound discretion of the
The heirs of Belinda, namely, Bena Jean, Daniel, probate court. A special administrator is a
Melchor, Michael, and Danibel, all surnamed representative of a decedent appointed by the
Castillo, filed a Motionpraying that they be probate court to care for and preserve his estate
substituted as party-litigants in lieu of their late until an executor or general administrator is
mother Belinda.. appointed. When appointed, a special
administrator is regarded not as a representative of
Roberto Gabriel died. His widow, Dolores, filed a the agent of the parties suggesting the
Manifestation and Motion where she informed appointment, but as the administrator in charge of
the probate court of her husbands death and the estate, and, in fact, as an officer of the court.
prayed that she be admitted as substitute of her As such officer, he is subject to the supervision
husband, and be appointed as administratrix of and control of the probate court and is expected to
the estate of Crisanta Gabriel as well. She alleged work for the best interests of the entire estate,
that she had a bachelors degree in law and had especially its smooth administration and earliest
worked for several years in a law office. settlement. The principal object of appointment of
temporary administrator is to preserve the estate
The heirs of Belinda opposed and averred that until it can pass into hands of person fully
Dolores was not Crisanta Gabriels next of kin, let authorized to administer it for the benefit of
alone the lawful wife of the late Roberto which was creditors and heirs. In many instances, the
refuted by Dolores. appointment of administrators for the estates of
decedents frequently become involved in protracted
Bena Jean filed a Motion for Appointment as litigations, thereby exposing such estates to great
Administrator of the Estate of Crisanta Y. Gabrie waste and losses unless an authorized agent to
praying that she be appointed administratrix of the collect the debts and preserve the assets in the
estate of her grandmother Crisanta. interim is appointed. The occasion for such an
appointment, likewise, arises where, for some
This was opposed by Dolores claiming that Bena cause, such as a pendency of a suit concerning the
has neither proven her kinship with Crisanta proof of the will, regular administration is delayed.
Section 1, Rule 80 of the Revised Rules of Court collect and preserve the property of
provides: the deceased.

Section 1. Appointment of It is obvious that the phrase

Special Administrator. When there is by any cause includes those
delay in granting letters incidents which transpired in the
testamentary or of administration by instant case clearly showing that
any cause including an appeal from there is a delay in the probate of the
the allowance or disallowance of a will and that the granting of letters
will, the court may appoint a special testamentary will consequently be
administrator to take possession prolonged necessitating the
and charge of the estate of the immediate appointment of a special
deceased until the questions administrator.[35]
causing the delay are decided and
executors or administrators
appointed. As enunciated above, the probate court has ample
jurisdiction to appoint respondent as special
administratrix. The deceased Crisanta Yanga-
The new Rules have broadened the basis for the Gabriel left a document purporting to be her will
appointment of an administrator, and such where her adopted son, Roberto, was named as the
appointment is allowed when there is delay in sole heir of all her properties. However, pending
granting letters testamentary or administration by probate of the will, Roberto died leaving his widow,
any cause, e.g., parties cannot agree among the respondent herein, as his sole heir. Thus, the
themselves. Nevertheless, the discretion to appoint respondent has much stake in Crisantas estate in
a special administrator or not lies in the probate case the latters will is allowed probate. It needs to
court.[33] In De Guzman v. Guadiz, Jr.,[34] the Court be emphasized that in the appointment of a special
further elucidated administrator (which is but temporary and subsists
only until a regular administrator is appointed),
the probate court does not determine the shares in
the decedents estate, but merely appoints who is
Under the above rule, the entitled to administer the estate. The issue of
probate court may appoint a special heirship is one to be determined in the decree of
administrator should there be a distribution, and the findings of the court on
delay in granting letters therelationship of the parties in the administration
testamentary or of administration as to be the basis of distribution. [36] Thus, the
occasioned by any cause including preference of respondent is sound, that is, not
an appeal from the allowance or whimsical, or contrary to reason, justice, equity or
disallowance of a will. Subject to legal principle.
this qualification, the appointment
of a special administrator lies in the The petitioners strenuous invocation of Section 6,
discretion of the Court. This Rule 78 of the Rules of Court is misplaced. The
discretion, however, must be sound, rule refers to the appointment of regular
that is, not whimsical, or contrary to administrators of estates; Section 1, Rule 80, on the
reason, justice, equity or legal other hand, applies to the appointment of a special
principle. administrator. It has long been settled that the
appointment of special administrators is not
The basis for appointing a governed by the rules regarding the appointment of
special administrator under the regular administrators.[37] Thus, in Roxas v. Pecson,
Rules is broad enough to include [38]
this Court ruled:
any cause or reason for the delay in It is well settled that the
granting letters testamentary or of statutory provisions as to the prior
administration as where a contest as or preferred right of certain persons
to the will is being carried on in the to the appointment of administrator
same or in another court, or where under Section 1, Rule 81, as well as
there is an appeal pending as to the the statutory provisions as to causes
proceeding on the removal of an for removal of an executor or
executor or administrator, or in administrator under section 653 of
cases where the parties cannot Act No. 190, now Section 2, Rule 83,
agree among themselves. Likewise, do not apply to the selection or
when from any cause general removal of special administrator. ...
administration cannot be As the law does not say who shall be
immediately granted, a special appointed as special administrator
administrator may be appointed to and the qualifications the appointee
must have, the judge or court has
 discretion in the selection of the (5) the estate of -the decedent has a probable net
person to be appointed, discretion value which may be provisionally assessed at
which must be sound, that is, not P4,000,000.00 more or less;
whimsical or contrary to reason,
justice or equity. (6) the possible creditors of the estate, who have
accounts payable. and existing claims against the
On the plea of the petitioners for this Court to firm C. SANTOS Construction are listed in
appoint their co-petitioner, Bena Jean Castillo, as
Annex "E;"
the regular administratrix of the estate of Crisanta
Yanga-Gabriel, the matter should be addressed to
(7) the compulsory heirs of the decedent are the as
the probate court for its consideration. It is not for
the surviving spouse (her) and their two (2) minor
this Court to preempt the discretion of the probate
children namely: Charmane Rose de Guzman 11
court and appoint a regular administrator in the
present action. years and Peter Brian de Guzman, 9 years old;

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The (8) after diligent search and inquiry to ascertain
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. whether the decedent left a last will and testament,
70645, dated October 30, 2003, and its Resolution none has been found and according to the best
of March 26, 2004 are AFFIRMED. Costs against knowledge information and belief of the petitioner,
the petitioners. SO ORDERED. Manolito de Guzman died intestate; and

G.R. No. 78590 June 20, 1988 (9) the petitioner as the survey surviving spouse of
the decedent, is most qualified and entitled to the
grant of letters of administration.

She also filed a motion for writ of possession over

PEDRO DE GUZMAN vs. THE HONORABLE
five (5) vehicles registered under the name of
JUDGE ZOSIMO Z. ANGELES, RTC BRANCH 58,
Manolito de Guzman, alleged to be conjugal
MAKATI, METRO, MANILA; DEPUTY SHERIFFS
properties of the de Guzman's but which are at
JOSE B. FLORA and HONORIO SANTOS and present in the possession of the private
ELAINE G. DE GUZMAN respondent's father-in- law, herein petitioner Pedro
de Guzman.

FACTS
Elaine G. de Guzman, petitioner-movant, was
Elaine G. de Guzman filed a petition for the appointed as Special Administratrix of the Estate of
settlement of the intestate estate of her husband, the deceased Manolito de Guzman, pending
Manolito de Guzman, before the Regional Trial appointment of a regular administrator.
Court of Makati, Metro Manila. The case was
docketed as Special Proceedings .No. M-1436.

Trouble ensued when the respondents tried to

enforce the above order. The Pedro de Guzman
The petition alleges that: resisted. The petitioner then filed a manifestation
listing properties which he claimed to be his own.
(1) on March 22,1987, Manolito de Guzman died in The petitioner contends that the June 5, 1987
Makati, Metro Manila; order is a patent nullity, the respondent court not
having acquired jurisdiction to appoint a special
(2) at the time of his death, the decedent was a administratrix because the petition for the
resident of Makati, Metro Manila; settlement of the estate of Manolito de Guzman
was not yet set for hearing and published for three
(3) decedent left personal and real properties as consecutive weeks, as mandated by the Rules of
part of his estate, listed in Annexes "A," "B," "C" Court. The petitioner also stresses that the
and "D;" appointment of a special administratrix constitutes
an abuse of discretion for having been made
(4) the properties were acquired after the marriage without giving petitioner and other parties an
of the petitioner to the decedent and therefore are opportunity to oppose said appointment.
included in their conjugal partnership;
ISSUE:

Whether or not a probate court may appoint a In the instant case, no notice as mandated by
special administratrix AND issue a writ of section 3, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court
possession of alleged properties of a decedent for was caused to be given by the probate court before
the preservation of the estate in a petition for the it acted on the motions of the private respondent to
settlement of the intestate estate. be appointed as special administratrix, to issue a
writ of possession of alleged properties of the
deceased person in the widow's favor, and to grant
her motion for assistance to preserve the estate of
RULLING: Manolito de Guzman.

Yes, it should go through the process.

In the instant case, there is no doubt that the WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED.
respondent court acquired jurisdiction over the The questioned orders of the Regional Trial Court,
proceedings upon the filing of a petition for the Branch 58 of Makati are hereby set aside. The case
settlement of an intestate estate by the private is ordered remanded to the lower court for the
respondent since the petition had alleged all the hearing of the petition with previous notice to all
jurisdictional facts, the residence of the deceased interested parties as required by law. In view of the
person, the possible heirs and creditors and the voluntary inhibition of the respondent Judge, the
probable value of the estate of the deceased Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Manolito de Guzman pursuant to Section 2, Rule Makati is directed to re-raffle the case to another
79 of the Revised Rules of Court. branch of the court. The Temporary Restraining
Order dated June 10, 1987 is made permanent.

Fule vs CA
We must, however, differentiate between the
jurisdiction of the probate court over the FACTS:
proceedings for the administration of an estate and Virginia G. Fule was appointed as special
its jurisdiction over the persons who are interested administratrix of the estate of Amado Garcia. The
in the settlement of the estate of the deceased said appointment was opposed by Preciosa B.
person. The court may also have jurisdiction over Garcia, spouse of Amado Garcia contending that
the "estate" of the deceased person but the the appointment was issued without jurisdiction,
determination of the properties comprising that since no notice of the petition for letters of
estate must follow established rules. administration has been served upon all persons
interested in the estate. As the surviving spouse of
Amado G. Garcia, she should be preferred in the
appointment of a special administratrix; and,
Section 3, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court
Virginia G. Fule is a debtor of the estate of Amado
provides:
G. Garcia. Preciosa B. Garcia, therefore, prayed
that she be appointed special administratrix of the
Court to set time for hearing. Notice thereof.
estate, in lieu of Virginia G. Fule, and as regular
When a petition for letters of administration is filed
administratrix after due hearing. While this
in the court having jurisdiction, such court shall
reconsideration motion was pending resolution
fix a time and place for hearing the petition, and
before the Court, Preciosa B. Garcia filed a motion
shall cause notice thereof to be given to the known
to remove Virginia G. Fule as special administratrix
heirs and creditors of the decedent, and to any
alleging that her appointment was obtained
other persons believed to have an interest in the
through erroneous, misleading and/or incomplete
estate, in the manner provided in sections 3 and 4
misrepresentations
of Rule 76.
The notice of hearing of the petition for letters of
administration filed by Virginia G. Fule with the
Court of First Instance of Calamba, Laguna.
It is very clear from this provision that the probate Preciosa B. Garcia filed an opposition to the
court must cause notice through publication of the original and supplemental petitions for letters of
petition after it receives the same. The purpose of administration, raising the issues of jurisdiction,
this notice is to bring all the interested persons venue, lack of interest of Virginia G. Fule in the
within the court's jurisdiction so that the judgment estate of Amado G. Garcia, and disqualification of
therein becomes binding on all the world. Virginia G Fule as special administratrix. An
omnibus motion was filed by Virginia G. Fule 2 Whether or not Court erred in appointing
praying for authority to take possession of Preciosa Garcia as administratrix of the
properties of the decedent allegedly in the hands of estate of Amado Garcia?
third persons as well as to secure cash advances
from the Calamba Sugar Planters Cooperative HELD:
Marketing Association, Inc. Preciosa B. Garcia
1 With particular regard to letters of
opposed the motion, calling attention to the
limitation made by Judge Malvar on the power of administration, Section 2, Rule 79 of the
the special administratrix, viz., "to making an Revised Rules of Court demands that the
inventory of the personal and real properties petition therefor should affirmatively show
making up the state of the deceased." Judge the existence of jurisdiction to make the
Malvar and already issued an order denying the appointment sought, and should allege all
motion of Preciosa B. Garcia to reconsider the the necessary facts, such as death, the
order appointing Virginia G. Fule as special name and last residence of the decedent,
administratrix, and admitting the supplementation the existence, and situs if need be, of
petition. the Court of Appeals rendered judgment
assets, intestacy, where this is relied upon,
annulling the proceedings before Judge Severo A.
and the right of the person who seeks
Malvar. Preciosa B. Garcia had already filed a
administration, as next of kin, creditor, or
petition for letters of administration before the
otherwise, to be appointed.
Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City
Branch over the same intestate estate of Amado G.
We rule that the last place of residence of
Garcia. Preciosa B. Garcia urgently moved for her
the deceased Amado G. Garcia was at 11
appointment as special administratrix of the
estate. Judge Vicente G. Ericta granted the motion Carmel Avenue, Carmel Subdivision,
and appointed Preciosa B. Garcia as special Quezon City, and not at Calamba, Laguna.
administratrix upon a bond of P30,000.00. Judge A death certificate is admissible to prove
Ericta ordered the suspension of the proceedings the residence of the decedent at the time of
before his court until Preciosa B. Garcia inform the his death. As it is, the death certificate of
court of the final outcome of the case pending Amado G. Garcia, which was presented in
before the Court of Appeals. evidence by Virginia G. Fule herself and
Virginia G. Fule filed a "Special Appearance to also by Preciosa B. Garcia, shows that his
Question Venue and Jurisdiction" reiterating the last place of residence was at 11 Carmel
grounds stated in the previous special appearance Avenue, Carmel Subdivision, Quezon City.
of March 3, 1975, and calling attention that the Withal, the conclusion becomes imperative
decision of the Court of Appeals and its resolution that the venue for Virginia C. Fule's petition
denying the motion for reconsideration had been for letters of administration was improperly
appealed to this Court; that the parties had laid in the Court of First Instance of
already filed their respective briefs; and that the Calamba, Laguna. Nevertheless, the long-
case is still pending before the Court.
settled rule is that objection to improper
Judge Ernani Cruz Pano, who succeeded Judge venue is subject to waiver. Section 4, Rule 4
Ericta, issued an order granting Preciosa B. of the Revised Rules of Court states: "When
Garcia's "Urgent Petition for Authority to Pay Estate improper venue is not objected to in a
Obligations" in that the payments were for the motion to dismiss, it is deemed waived." In
benefit of the estate and that there hangs a cloud the case before Us the Court of Appeals had
of doubt on the validity of the proceedings in Sp. reason to hold that in asking to substitute
Proc. No. 27-C of the Court of First Instance of
Virginia G. Fule as special administratrix,
Laguna.
Preciosa B. Garcia did not necessarily waive
VIRGINIA G. FULE instituted a petition for her objection to the jurisdiction or venue
certiorari with temporary restraining order, to assumed by the Court of First Instance of
annul the proceedings and to restrain Judge Calamba, Laguna, but availed of a mere
Ernani Cruz Pao from further acting in the case. practical resort to alternative remedy to
ISSUES: assert her rights as surviving spouse, while
insisting on the enforcement of the Rule
1 Whether or not CFI of Laguna has fixing the proper venue of the proceedings
Jurisdiction to appoint administratix of the at the last residence of the decedent.
estate of Amado Garcia
2 Preciosa B. Garcia's challenge to Virginia
G. Fule's appointment as special
 administratrix is another issue of that she was authorized to withdraw said jewelry
perplexity. Preciosa B. Garcia claims from the bank. In her application Magdalena
preference to the appointment as surviving Cobarrubias stated that she was the only forced
spouse. Section 1 of Rule 80 provides that heiress of the late Pilar Leyba. Accepting as good
"(w)hen there is delay in granting letters these allegations, the Honorable Judge Dizon on
the same date, July 5, 1945, appointed Magdalena
testamentary or of administration by any
Cobarrubias special administrator on bail of P200.
cause including an appeal from the
On July 19, the petitioner filed a brief alleging that
allowance or disallowance of a will, the
since the Court "has rescinded its order dated 5 of
court may appoint a special administrator said month and year," requested that the Court
to take possession and charge of the estate order the cancellation of the bond of P200 and its
of the deceased until the questions causing return to the lawyer of The applicant
the delay are decided and executors or
administrators appointed. 13 Formerly, the ISSUE: Whether or not appointed special
appointment of a special administrator was administrator can be revoked?
only proper when the allowance or
disallowance of a will is under appeal. The HELD:
new Rules, however, broadened the basis
for appointment and such appointment is Yes.Revoking the appointment of the appellant as
special administrator and revoking the order
now allowed when there is delay in granting
authorizing her to withdraw the deposited jewels,
letters testamentary or administration by
the Court does not abuse its discretion, nor work
any cause e.g., parties cannot agree among
outside its jurisdiction. The power of the Court of
themselves. 14 Nevertheless, the discretion
First Instance to render ineffective the appointment
to appoint a special administrator or not of an administrator, when the appointment has
lies in the probate court. 15 That, however, been obtained through false or incorrect
is no authority for the judge to become representations, is indisputable. When the Court
partial, or to make his personal likes and appointed the appellant special administrator with
dislikes prevail over, or his passions to rule, authorization to withdraw from the bank jewels
his judgment. Exercise of that discretion valued at P4,500 under a P200 bond, it took into
must be based on reason, equity, justice account its essential claim that "it was the sole
forced heiress of the deceased." There was no
and legal principle. Under the law, the
danger of possible embezzlement; They could even
widow would have the right of
name it without bail. But upon receiving a report
succession over a portion of the that this allegation was inaccurate. Which was
exclusive property of the decedent, confirmed by the motion of the same petitioner
besides her share in the conjugal who requested the "suspension of publication and
partnership. For such reason, she would postponement of the hearing" because he wished to
"have time to arrange an extrajudicial partition
have as such, if not more, interest in
with his co-heirs," the court had ample grounds to
administering the entire estate correctly revoke those orders even Without notification to
than any other next of kin. the administrator: the intestate is not initiated for
the benefit of the administrators but of the
heirs. The court should act immediately and not
put in danger. With his indifference, the jewels. If
MAGDALENA COBARRUBIAS vs Arsenio Dizon he allowed a few hours to pass, without taking
drastic action, the jewels valued at P4,500 could be
FACTS: withdrawn by the special administrator who was
only secured in P200 to the detriment of the
The petitioner Magdalena Cobarrubias filed an interests of the minors. The zeal shown by the
urgent motion, alleging that the funeral Pilar Leyba court was well founded. The position of special
had deposited sys alhajas Are worth P4,500 in administrator is one of trust. As soon as it lost its
security section of the Bank of the Philippine confidence in the integrity of the applicant, the
Islands; That said bank notified all interested Court was fully justified in revoking its
parties that they withdraw the contents of their appointment as special administrator and
section within the shortest possible time, so she withdrawing its authorization to remove the jewels
asked to be appointed special administrator and from the bank.