spec pro digest1

8/12/2019 Spec Pro Digest1

1/7

1| P a g e

SPEC PRO- BATCH 1 DIGEST

Appointment and Removal of Execto! o! Admini"t!ato!The central fgure in probate administration is the executor or administrator. He acts as thearm o the court or the purpose o administering the estate or the beneft o the heirs,creditors and other proper lawul distributees o the estate. His main unction is to collect,preserve, and administer this estate, pay the claims against it and distribute the residue asper order o the court or as may be agreed upon by the parties. The position o executor oradministrator is invested with much power but naturally his power is proportionate only tothe size and uality o the estate !" #autista $$%.

Appointment of execto! o! admini"t!ato!Persons not allowed to serve as executor or administrator. & '(o person is allowed to serve asexecutor or administrator who)1% is a minor*"% not a resident o the Philippines* and$% is in the opinion o the court unft to execute the duties o the trust by reason odrun+enness, improvidence, or want o understanding or integrity, or by reason o convictiono an oense involving moral turpitude !-ule /, 0ec. 1, -230 45 64-T%*

When no executor named in the will; Statutory Order of Preference.77 8 no executor is named in the will,7 or the executor or executors are incompetent, reuse the trust, or ail to give bond,7 or a person dies intestate,!obligatory orce% administration shall be granted)1% to the surviving husband or wie, as the case may be,

or next o +in, or both,in the discretion o the court,or to such person as such surviving husband or wie, as the case may be, or next o +in,reuests to have appointed,i competent and willing to serve*"% i such surviving husband or wie, as the case may be, or next o +in, or the personselected by them,be incompetent or unwilling*or i the husband or widow, or next o +in,neglects or thirty !$9% days ater the death o the person to apply or administration or toreuest that administration be granted to some other person,it may be granted to one or more o the principal creditors, i competent and willing to serve*and$% i there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve,it may be granted to such other person as the court may select !-ule /, 0ec. :%

Principal consideration; Test of Highest Interest and Most Inuential Motie .& Theprincipal consideration in the appointment o the administrator is the interest in the estate o

the one to be appointed. The underlying assumption behind the order o preerence in theappointment o an administrator is that those who will reap the beneft o a wise, speedy,economical administration o the estate or, on the other hand, suer the conseuences owaste, improvidence or mismanagement, have the highest interest and most in;uentialmotive to administer the estate correctly !9 06-= 11", 1>>9%.

!"ext of #in$% & those persons who are entitled under the statute o distribution to thedecedent?s property !>"%. The nearest o +in ispreerred in the choice o administrator because his interest in the estate is morepreponderant !Aentura vs. Aentura, 1:9 06-= 1/9, 1>//%.The 0upreme 6ourt does not loo+ with avor on the practice o cler+s o court or other courtemployees being appointed as administrators o estates o decedents pending settlementbeore the probate court. The obBectivity or impartiality o such cler+s o court or otheremployees in discharging their regular unctions may be easily compromised by extraneousconsiderations. 5urthermore, sel7interest may intrude in the prompt and expeditious

settlement o the estate because o the administrator?s ees and compensation payable tothem !" #autista $:, citing Cedina vs. 6ourt o =ppeals, D$ 06-= "9:, 1>$%.=n order appointing an administrator is appealable, because it is a fnal determination o therights o the parties thereunder !Aiuda de #iascan vs, #iascan, $@ 06-= :"1, "999%

Co-admini"t!ato!"#& Two or more administrators may be appointed or an estate, especiallywhen it is large and its administration complex.6o7administration should however be resorted to in exceptional cases only because it maylend to con;ict between or among the co7administrators and diusion o responsibility.The appointment o co7administrators has however been upheld or various reasons)1% to have the beneft o their Budgment and perhaps at all times to have dierent interestsrepresented*"% where Bustice and euity demand that opposing parties or actions be represented in themanagement o the estate o the deceased*$% where the estate is large or, rom any cause, an intricate one to settle*@% to have all interested parties satisfed and the representatives to wor+ in harmony or thebest interests o the estate* andD% when a person is entitled to the administration o an estate desires to have another

competent person associated with him in the oEce !>"%.=lthough a co7administrator is designated to administer a portion o the estate, he is no lessan administrator o the whole because o his Budicious management o a mere parcelenhances the value o the entire estate, while his ineEcient or corrupt administration thereonecessarily diminishes the value o the whole estate !" #autista $%.

Special admini"t!ato!#& Fhen there is delay in granting letters testamentary or oadministration by any cause including an appeal rom the allowance or disallowance o a will,the court may appoint a special administrator to ta+e possession and charge o the estate othe deceased until the uestions causing the delay are decided and executors oradministrators are appointed !-ule /9, 0ec. 1, -230 45 64-T%. Prior however to thepublication o the notice o hearing on the petition or settlement o the estate o a decedent,the probate court cannot appoint a special administrator because the court has theretoorenot acuired Burisdiction over persons interested in the estate !Ge


2/7

"| P a g e

There is no basis or the appointment o a special administrator pending appeal rom theappointment o a regular administrator because the administrator7appointee should be theadministrator pending appeal rom his appointment !-elucio vs. 0an ose, /1 Phil. $:D, 1>D"%.There are established actors which should be rec+oned with in ma+ing the appointment o aspecial administrator. 5or one, t$e exect!ix%" c$oice of "pecial admini"t!ato!is entitledto the highest consideration !6orona vs. 6ourt o =ppeals, 11: 06-= $1:, 1>/"%.0ince the appointment o a special administrator is within the discretion o the probate courtthe order appointing such special administrator is not appealable (PiBuan vs. Aiuda de /, 1>::%. The removal, as the appointment, o a special administrator, is an

interlocutory matter incidental to the main case and lies in the sound discretion o theprobate court !=lcasid vs. 0amson, 19" Phil. $D, 1>D:%.

Powers and &uties of a Special (dministrator.& The powers and duties o a specialadministrator are almost li+e those o a regular administrator. 0uch special administrator shallta+e possession o the goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate o the deceased andpreserve the same or the executor or administrator aterwards appointed, and or thatpurpose may commence and maintain suits as administrator !-ule /9, 0ec. ", -230 4564-T%.Rle&= special administrator shall not be liable to pay any debts o the deceased unless soordered by the court.Co!olla!' Rle) = special administrator may sell only such perishable and other property asthe court orders sold !-ule /9, 0ec. "%*Co!olla!' Exception&The special administrator may properly be authorized to sell theproperty regardless o whether it is perishable.Co!olla!' Exception to t$e Exception# & He cannot be authorized to sell real property othe estate !0ilverio vs. 6ourt o =ppeals, $9@ 06-= D@1, 1>>>%.7 8t is not alone the specifc property which is to be preserved, but its value as well !=nderson

vs. Per+ins, 1 06-= $/, 1>:1%.

Ancilla!' admini"t!ation#& Fhere a deceased let property in another country or whichprobate administration has been instituted, an ancillary administration may be had throughproper petition in our courts o his estate in the Philippines !Tayag vs. #enguet, ": 06-= "@",1>:/%.

)ationale for (ncillary (dministration. & The reason or ancillary administration is that agrant o administration does not ex proprio vigore have any eect beyond the limits o thecountry in which it was granted !" #autista @9%.Scope of Powers of Administration. & =dministration extends only to assets o a decedentound within the state or country where it was granted, so that the administrator appointed inone state or country has no power over property in another state or country !2eon I 9 Phil. @D>, 1>D1%.

Removal of execto! o! admini"t!ato!#& 8 ater letters o administration have beengranted on the estate o a decedent as i he had died intestate, his will is proved and allowedby the court,!obligatory orce% the letters o administration shall be revo+ed and all powers there undercease, and the administrator shall orthwith surrender the letters to the court, and render hisaccount within such time as the court directs !Rle ()* Sec# 1* R+,ES O CO+RT%.

*rounds for )emoal%& 8 an executor or administrator

1% neglects to render his account and settle the estate according to law,"% or to perorm an order or Budgment o the court, or a duty expressly provided by the -ules,$% or absconds,@% or becomes insane,D% or otherwise incapable or unsuitable to discharge the trustthe court may remove him, or, in its discretion, may permit him to resign.Fhen an executor or administrator dies, resigns, or is removed the remaining executor oradministrator may administer the trust alone, unless the court grants letters to someone toact with him. 8 there is no remaining executor or administrator, administration may be

granted to any suitable person !-ule /", 0ec. "%.=n admini"t!at!ix may be removed or her ailure in six !:% years and three !$% months romthe time she was appointed to render an accounting o her administration !2im Jalaw vs.8ntermediate =ppellate 6ourt, "1$ 06-= "/>, 1>>"%.

So ma' an admini"t!ato! .e p!ope!l' !emoved)7 where he ailed to pay the estate tax and render an accounting o the estate7 and where he involved the heirs in a transaction which caused them to be sued !Cendiolavs. 6ourt o =ppeals, 1>9 06-= @"1, 1>>9%

An execto! /a" $eld to $ave .een p!ope!l' !emoved fo! t$e follo/in0 !ea"on"&1% withdrawal o money rom a Boint current account maintained in a ban+ in his name andthat o the deceased and the deposit o the withdrawn amount in a Boint account in his nameand that o his brother*"% the executor omitted to include, as income o the estate, the sum o P:,999.99 which hereceived rom a hacienda o the deceased and the deposit o other proceeds rom deceased?sarm in his Boint account with his brother*$% the executor claimed as his own certain shares in a gas company in the name o the

deceased on his assertion that the deceased was merely his 'dummy.KConict .et/een t$e inte!e"t of t$e execto! and t$e inte!e"t of t$e decea"ed isground or removal or resignation o the ormer who thereby becomes unsuitable todischarge the trust. =n executor is a uasi7trustee who should be indierent between theestate and claimants o the property, except to preserve it or due administration !" #autista@$, citing #orromeo vs. #orromeo, > Phil. D@>, 1>DD%.

+,ect of )emoal on Prior (cts of (dministrator.& The lawul acts o an executor oradministrator beore the revocation o his letters testamentary or o administration, or beorehis resignation or removal,!obligatory orce% shall have the li+e validity as i there had been no such revocation,resignation, or removal !-ule /", 0ec. $, -230 45 64-T%.

-i#e Powers of Su.se/uent +xecutor0(dministrator.& The person to whome letterstestamentary or o administration are granted ater the revocation o ormer letters, or thedeath, resignation, or removal o a ormer executor or administrator,!obligatory orce% shall have the li+e powers1% to collect and settle the estate not administered that the ormer executor or administratorhad,"% and may prosecute or deend actions commenced by or against the ormer executor oradministrator,$% and have executions on Budgments recovered in the name o such ormer executor oradminsitrator.


3/7

$| P a g e

=n authority granted by the court to the ormer executor or administrator or the sale ormortgage o real estate may be renewed in avor o such person without urther notice orhearing !-ule /", 0ec. @, -230 45 64-T%.LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL7

2ovem.e! )3* 1341In t$e 5atte! of t$e Te"tate E"tate of BASI, GORDO2 B+T,ER6 5ERCEDES ,EO2*petitione!-appellant* and ADA ,OGGE7 GHE88I* admini"t!at!ix-appellant*v"#5A2+ACT+RERS ,IE I2S+RA2CE CO#* t$! P$ilippine B!anc$* oppo"ito!-appellee#T+ASO2*1%2

ACTS&

#asil @D, leaving a will which was duly probated in the 0urrogateNs 6ourt o (ew Mor+ 6ounty on=ugust $ o the same year, and o which ames -oss, 0r., ames Cadison -oss, r. and 3wald 3.0elph were named executors. The estate having been settled, the proceedings were closedon uly 1, 1>@.ames Cadison -oss was appointed trustee by the (ew Mor+ 6ounty 0urrogateNs 6ourt. 4nceappointed and in execution o a provision in the will in avor o Cercedes de 2eon, thebenefciary named in the will, -oss bought an annuity rom the CanuacturerNs lie 8nsurance6o. at its head oEce in Toronto, 6anada, paying in advance O1,9>1.9$ as the combined

premiums. The contract stipulates or a monthly payment o OD.:9 to Cercedes during herlietime, with the proviso that in the event o her death, the residue, i any, o the capital sumshall be paid in one sum to ames Cadison -oss or his successor as trustee. =nd beginningCay ", 1>@/, Cercedes de 2eon has been receiving the stipulated monthly allowancethrough the 8nsurance 6ompanyNs Canila 4Ece.#ut Cercedes wanted to get a hold o the entire annuity in one payment, and so on0eptember @, 1>@/, she presented #utlerNs will or probate in the 6ourt o 5irst 8nstance oCanila, and secured the appointment o =da 2oggey @>.The administration o #utlerNs estate granted in (ew Mor+ was the principal or domiciliaryadministration, while the administration ta+en out in the Philippines is ancillary. The twoproceedings, however, are separate and independent.

ISS+E& F4( the Canila court had authority with respect to the assets herein involved.

HE,D&

The rule is that administration extends only to the assets o a decedent ound within thestate or country where it was granted, so that an administrator appointed in one state orcountry has no power over property in another s tate or country. This principle is specifcallyembodied in section @ o -ule / o the -ules o 6ourt. The unds in uestion are outside theBurisdiction o the probate court o Canila. Having been invested in an annuity in 6anadaunder a contract executed in the country, 6anada is the situs o the money.

3ven i the money were in the hands o the Canila #ranch, yet it no longer orms part o#utlerNs estate and is beyond the control o the court. 8t has passed completely into the handso the company in virtue o a contract duly authorized and validly executed.Coreover, the power o the court to cite a person or the purpose stated in theadministratrixNs motion is defned in section o -ule //. The appellant administratrix did notentrust to the appellee the money she wants the latter to account or, nor did the said moneycome to the appelleeNs possession in trust or the administratrix. 8n other words, theadministratrix is a complete stranger to the subBect o the motion and to the appellee. =ppealdenied.

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

G#R# 2o# 9(43: ;ne ):* 13((PEDRO DE G+85A2* petitioner,vs.THE HO2ORAB,E ;+DGE 8OSI5O 8# A2GE,ES* RTC BRA2CH 4(* 5A/, private respondent 3laine


4/7

@| P a g e

8n an order dated Cay "/,1>/, the aoresaid motion was set or hearing on une D, 1>/. 8nthis same order, the lower court directed that all parties in the case be notifed. However, nonotice o the order was given to the petitioner.

8n an order dated une D, 1>/, the lower court granted the private respondentNs motion to beappointed as special administratrix. 4n une /, 1>/, the court granted the motion oappointments made herein by P- or the purpose o the execution o the writ o possession.Trouble ensued when the respondents tried to enorce the above order. The petitionerresisted when Geputy 0heris ose #. 5lora and Honorio 0antos tried to ta+e the subBect

vehicles on the ground that they were his personal properties.

The petitioner then fled a maniestation listing properties which he claimed to be his own.Thereater, the instant petition was fled to annul the lower courtNs orders dated une D, 1>/and une /, 1>/. The petitioner contends that the une D, 1>/ order is a patent nullity, therespondent court not having acuired Burisdiction to appoint a special administratrix becausethe petition or the settlement o the estate o Canolito de / order, the petitioner alleges that the immediate grant o the motionpraying or the courtNs assistance in the preservation o the estate o the deceased, withoutnotice to the petitioner Pedro de


5/7

D| P a g e

ACTS&

5ransisco Aalmores here claims to be the adopted child o the spouses Gomingo Aalmores and-osalia 0anguitan. He fled or a petition or the appointment o 3ulegio 3usebio asadministrator o the estate as the surviving spouse Gomingo is already /9 years old andphysically unft to discharge the duties o administrator.

. 4n the day set or the hearing, no one appeared except counsel or the petitioner 5ranciscoAalmores. 5rancisco Aalmores himsel did not appear. 6ounsel or the petitioner proved thepublication o the notice o hearing and, aterwards, presented his witness, one by the nameo -aymundo Gelmindo, who declared that he is the brother o 5rancisco Aalmores.

pon the presentation o the said testimony and the above maniestation o counsel orpetitioner, the court entered an order that same date, =ugust ">, 1>D", appointing 3ulogio3usebio administrator o the estate o the deceased. Thereater the ollowing proceedings orthe settlement o the estate too+ place in rapid succession.

The appointment was impugned by the surviving spouse on the ground that he is a strangerto the amily and to himsel, and praying that he be appointed administrator o the propertieso the deceased, and that the case be set or hearing so that he can present his evidence.

Guring the pendency o the case Gomingo died and it has been ound out that he wasmarried to second wie acinta, the widow was substituted or the Gomingo.

#ut on anuary ":, 1>DD Caximo 0auitan fled a petition in this 6ourt, alleging that he is anephew o the deceased -osalia 0auitan* that the real name o 5rancisco Aalmores, who

fled the petition, is 5rancisco Gelmindo* that 5rancisco Gelmindo changed his name andsurreptitiously fled the petition or administration* that movant is the only nephew o -osalia0auitan and is the heir at law o the latter and Gelmindo +new these acts* that despite said+nowledge, !anci"co Delmindo failed to 0ive notice to $im of t$e p!oceedin0" a"!e?i!ed .' t$e Rle"6 and that the newspaper 2a 4pinion is not a newspaper o generalcirculation in the province o -izal !supporting said allegation with an aEdavit o twonewspaper agents o Pasig, -izal%. He, thereore, prayed that the proceedings in the 658 beset aside and the petition be reinstated or a trial de novo!and that the records be remandedto the court o origin or said purpose.

ISS+E&

F4( the T6 erred in appointing a stranger as administrator o the properties or the reasonthat the person to be appointed should have been the surviving spouseR

HE,D&

7ES#

The trial court erred as it had ailed to comply with the provisions o 0ection $ and D o -ule/9.

= study o the records also discloses atal irregularities in the notice reuired to be given.Thus nowhere does it appear rom the record that Gomingo Aalmores was ever personallynotifed o the fling o the petition or o the time and place or hearing the same. His frstopposition shows that he was not aware o the hearing at all. He was notifed o theproceedings or the frst time when the inventory was sent him on (ovember ">, 1>D".Section = of Rle (: of t$e Rle" o 6ourt provides)

Fhen a petition or letters o administration is fled in the court having Burisdiction,such court shall fx a time and place or hearing the petition, andshall causenoticethereof to be given to the 'nown heirs and creditors of the decedent and to anyother persons believed to have an interest in the estate, in the manner provided insections $ and @ o -ule . !3mphasis supplied.%

The +nown heir in this case was Gomingo Aalmores and notice should have been given him inaccordance with Section = and @ of Rle 99 . 0ection @ o -ule specially provides)

The 6ourt shall also cause copies o the notice o the time and place fxed orproving the will to be addressed to the 'nown heirs! legatees and deviseeso thetestator resident in the Philippines at their place o residence, and deposited in thepost oEce with the postage prepaid at least twenty days beore the hearing, i suchplaces o residence be +nown.. ...Personal service of copied of the notice at least ten days before the day ofhearing shall be equivalent to mailing.

Section 4o the same rule also reuires)

=t the hearing compliance with the provisions o the last two preceding sections

must be shown beore the introduction o testimony in support o the will. =ll suchtestimony shall be ta+en under oath and reduced to writing.

The records o the hearing do not show that the notices as above reuired had been given toGomingo Aalmores or Caximo 0auitan.777777The evidence submitted in the hearing does not satisactorily prove that the petitioner waslegally adopted* hence, he did not have any interest in the properties o the deceased -osalia0auitan.

+nde! o!dina!' ci!cm"tance"* "c$ defect /old at$o!ie t$e di"mi""al of t$ep!oceedin0" e"peciall' in vie/ of t$e fact t$at t$e "!vivin0 "po"e of Ro"aliaSa0itanhad fled an aEdavit o adBudication under the provisions o 0ection 1 o -ule @ othe -ules. 6ounsel or Gomingo Aalmores, however, had not obBected to the application orthe appointment o an administrator* he only obBected to the appointment o the saidstranger 3ulogio 3usebio as administrator, claiming to have the right as surviving spouse tobe appointed as such administrator.

#y this act o Goming Aalmores, surviving spouse o the deceased, thereore, the atal deectin the petition may be considered, as cured.


6/7

:| P a g e

8n other words, the fling o the petition or the appointment o an administrator may beconsidered as having been ratifed by the surviving husband, Gomingo Aalmores, and or thisreason the proceedings ma' not .e di"mi""ed#

REASO2I2G&The reuirement as to notice is essential to the validity o the proceedings inorder that no person may be deprived o his right or property without due process o law.

T$e!efo!e*all the proceedings subseuent to the petition are void and should be, as theyhereby are, annulled, and it is ordered that the case be remanded to the court o origin orthe hearing o the original petition together with the opposition thereto o Gomingo Aalmores,with previous notice to all parties interest, including the widow o Gomingo Aalmores andCaximo 0auitan, as reuired by the -ules.LLLLLL

G#R# 2o# 9@9>3 Septem.e! )(* 133:BEATRI8 # GO28A,ES* petitioner,vs.HO2# 8OI,O AG+I2A,DO* ;d0e of Re0ional T!ial Co!t* B!anc$ 1@=* 5aati* 5et!o5anila and TERESA # O,BES*

ACTS&

This is a petition or certiorari which see+s to annul, on the ground o grave abuse odiscretion, the 4rder o the respondent udge, dated 1D anuary 1>/D, cancelling theappointment o the petitioner #eatriz 5. /$, the court a quoappointed petitioner #eatriz 5. /@, while petitioner #eatriz 5. 8n theexercise o its discretion, the probate court may appoint one, two or more co7administratorsto have the beneft o their Budgment and perhaps at all times to have dierent interestsrepresented.

8n the appointment o the administrator o the estate o a deceased person, the principalconsideration rec+oned with is the interest in said estate o the one to be appointed asadministrator.This is the same consideration which 0ection : o -ule / ta+es into account inestablishing the order o preerence in the appointment o administrators or the estate.

REASO2I2G&The underlying assumption behind this rule is that those who will reap the beneft o a wise,speedy, economical administration o the estate, or, on the other hand, suer theconseuences o waste, improvidence or mismanagement, have the highest interest andmost in;uential motive to administer the estate correctly.

8n the present case, the court a quodid not base the removal o the petitioner as co7administratrix on any o the causes specifed in respondentNs motion or relie o thepetitioner. (either did it dwell on, nor determine the validity o the charges brought againstpetitioner by respondent 4lbes. The court based the removal o the petitioner on the act thatin the administration o the estate, con;icts and misunderstandings have existed between


7/7

| P a g e

petitioner and respondent Teresa 4lbes which allegedly have preBudiced the estate, and theadded circumstance that petitioner had been absent rom the country since 4ctober 1>/@,and up to 1D anuary 1>/D, the date o the uestioned order.

Petitioner had never abandoned her role as co7administratrix o the estate nor had she beenremiss in the ullflment o her duties. 0uEce it to state* tempo!a!' a."encein the statedoes not disualiy one to be an administrator o the estate and that t$at t$e !emoval ofan admini"t!ato! doe" not lie on t$e /$im"* cap!ice" and dictate" of t$e $ei!" o!.enecia!ie" of t$e e"tate, nor on the belie o the court that it would result in orderly and

eEcient administration.78n re William*s Adm*r.!

=s the appointment o petitioner #eatriz 5.

spec pro digest1

Documents