[SPECPRODIGEST:DEANFEBLE]

1. NILDA GABRIEL, EVA GABRIEL, EDGAR GABRIEL, GEORGE GABRIEL,

ROSEMARIE GABRIEL, MARIBEL GABRIEL, CYNTHIA GABRIEL, RENATO
GABRIEL, GERARDO GABRIEL, JOJI ZORAYDA GABRIEL, DANIEL GABRIEL
and

FELICITAS

JOSEGABRIEL,
petitioners,

v.
HONCOURTOFAPPEALS,HON.MANUELE.YUZON,Judge,RegionalTrialCourt
ofManila,BranchXI,andROBERTODINDOGABRIEL,respondents.
August7,1992
Facts: OnMay12,1988,9monthsafterDomingoGabrieldiedonAugust6,1987,private
respondent Roberto filed with the RTC of Manila, a petition for letters of administration
alleging, among others, that he is the son of the decedent, a college graduate, engaged in
business,andisfullycapableofadministeringtheestateofthelateDomingoGabriel.Roberto
mentionedeight8ofhereinpetitionersastheothernextofkinandheirsofthedecedent.
TheRTCissuedanordersettingthepetitionforhearingonJune29,1988,andforinterested
personstoshowcausewhythepetitionshouldnotbegranted.Thecourtdirectedthepublication
oftheorderinthenewspaper"Mabuhay,"onceaweekfor3consecutiveweeks.Noopposition
havingbeenfiled,privaterespondentwasallowedtopresenthisevidenceexparte.Thereafter,
theprobatecourtissuedanorderappointingRobertoasadministratorwithabondofP30,000.
Subsequently,anoticetocreditorsforthefilingofclaimsagainsttheestatewaspublishedinthe
"MetropolitanNews."AidaValencia,motherofRoberto,fileda"MotiontoFileClaimof(sic)
theIntestateEstateofDomingoP.Gabriel"allegingthatthedecisioninacivilcasebetweenher
andthedeceasedremainedunsatisfiedandthatshetherebyhadaninterestinsaidestate.
OnDecember 12, 1988, Robertofiled forapproval bythe probatecourt an"Inventory and
Appraisal" placing the value of the properties left by the decedent at P18,960,000, which
incidentwassetforhearingonJanuary16,1989.
OnFebruary2,1989,petitionersfiledtheir"OppositionandMotion"prayingfortherecallofthe
lettersofadministrationissuedtoRobertoandtheissuanceofsuchlettersinsteadtopetitioner
NildaGabriel,asthelegitimatedaughterofthedeceased,oranyoftheotheroppositorswhoare
thehereinpetitioners.Theyallegedthat(1)theywerenotdulyinformedbypersonalnoticeof
thepetitionforadministration;(2)petitionerNildaGabriel,asthelegitimatedaughter,shouldbe
preferred over private respondent; (3) private respondent has a conflicting and/or adverse
interestagainsttheestatebecausehemightprefertheclaimsofhismotherand(4)mostofthe
propertiesofthedecedenthavealreadybeenrelinquishedbywayoftransferofownershipto

petitionersandshouldnotbeincludedinthevalueoftheestatesoughttobeadministeredby
privaterespondent.
Theprobatecourtissuedanorderdenyingtheoppositionofpetitionersonthegroundthat(1)no
evidencewassubmittedbyoppositorNildaGabrieltoprovethatsheisalegitimatedaughterof
thedeceased;and(2)thereisnoprooftoshowthatthepersonwhowasappointedadministrator
is unworthy, incapacitated or unsuitable to perform the trust as to make his appointment
inadvisableunderthesecircumstances.Themotionforreconsiderationfiledbypetitionerswas
likewisedenied.
The petitioners thereafter filed a special civil action for certiorari before the CA. The CA
renderedjudgmentdismissingthatpetitionforcertiorarionthegroundthattheappointmentof
anadministratorisleftentirelytothesounddiscretionofthetrialcourtwhichmaynotbe
interfered with unless abused; that the fact that there was no personal notice served on
petitionersisnotadenialofdueprocessassuchserviceisnotajurisdictionalrequisiteand
petitioners were heard on their opposition; and that the alleged violation of the order of
preference,ifany,isanerroroffactorlawwhichisamistakeofjudgment,correctibleby
appealandnotbythespecialcivilactionofcertiorari.
Inthepetitionforreviewoncertiorariatbar,petitionersaverthat(1)underSection6,Rule78
oftheRulesofCourt,itisthesurvivingspousewhoisfirstintheorderofpreferenceforthe
appointment of an administrator. Petitioner Felicitas JoseGabriel is the widow and legal
survivingspouseofthedeceasedDomingoGabrielandshould,therefore,bepreferredover
privaterespondentwhoisoneoftheillegitimatechildrenofthedecedentbyclaimant,Aida
Valencia.(2)Assumingthatthewidowisincompetent,thenextofkinmustbeappointed.As
betweenalegitimateandanillegitimatechild,theformerispreferred,hencepetitionerNilda
Gabriel, as the legitimate daughter, must be preferred over private respondent who is an
illegitimateson.(3)Thenonobservanceorviolationperseoftheorderofpreferencealready
constitutesagraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackofjurisdiction.
Ontheotherhand,privaterespondentcontendsthatthecourtdidnotcommitagraveabuseof
discretioninnotfollowingtheorderofpreferencebecausethesameisnotabsoluteandthe
choiceofwhotoappointrestsinthesounddiscretionofthecourt.Hecallsattentiontothefact
thatpetitionersNildaGabrielandFelicitasJoseGabrielneverappliedforappointmentdespite
thelapseofmorethannine(9)monthsfromthedeathofDomingoGabriel,henceitwasnot
possiblefortheprobatecourttohaveconsideredthemforappointment.Besides,itisnotdenied
that severalproperties ofthe deceasedhave alreadybeen relinquishedto hereinpetitioners,
hence they would have no interest in applying for letters of administration. Lastly, private
respondentsubmitsthatithasnotbeenshownthatheisincompetentnorishedisqualifiedfrom
beingappointedorservingasadministrator.

[SPECPRODIGEST:DEANFEBLE]

Issue: WONtheappointmentofRobertoasadministratoroftheestateofDomingoGabriel
shouldberevoked.

factualandsubstantialbasestherefor,isnotadequateratiocinationfortheremovalofprivate
respondent.

Held:TheSupremeCourtheldthattherewasnosufficientgroundtorevoketheappointmentof
RobertobutneverthelessappointedFelicitasascoadministratoroftheestate.

Underthecircumstancesobtainingherein,wedeemitjust,equitableandadvisablethattherebe
acoadministrationoftheestateofthedeceasedbypetitionerFelicitasJoseGabrielandprivate
respondent Roberto Dindo Gabriel. The purpose of having coadministrators is to have the
benefit of their judgment and perhaps at all times to have different interests represented,
especiallyconsideringthatinthisproceedingtheywillrespectivelyrepresentthelegitimateand
illegitimate groups of heirs to the estate. Thereby, it may reasonably be expected that all
interested persons will be satisfied, with the representatives working in harmony under the
directionandsupervisionoftheprobatecourt.

Theprincipalconsiderationintheappointmentofanadministratoristheinterestinsaidestateof
theonesoughttobeappointed.Thisisthesameconsiderationbehindtheorderofpreferencein
theappointmentofadministratorsfortheestate.Theunderlyingassumptionisthatthosewho
willreapthebenefitofawise,speedyandeconomicaladministrationoftheestate,or,onthe
otherhand,suffertheconsequencesofwaste,improvidenceormismanagement,havethehighest
interestandmostinfluentialmotivetoadministertheestatecorrectly.
Thewidowhastherightofsuccessionoveraportionoftheexclusivepropertyofthedecedent,
asidefromhershareintheconjugalpartnership.Forsuchreason,shewouldhaveasmuch,ifnot
more,interestinadministeringtheentireestatecorrectlythananyothernextofkin.Onthis
groundalone,petitionerFelicitasJoseGabriel,thewidowofthedeceasedDomingoGabriel,has
everyrightandisverymuchentitledtotheadministrationoftheestateofherhusbandsinceone
whohasgreaterinterestintheestateispreferredtoanotherwhohasless.

Theappointmentofcoadministratorshasbeenupheldforvariousreasons,viz:(1)tohavethe
benefitoftheirjudgmentandperhapsatalltimestohavedifferentinterestsrepresented;(2)
where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or factions be represented in the
managementoftheestateofthedeceased;(3)wheretheestateislargeor,fromanycause,an
intricate and perplexing one to settle; (4) to have all interested persons satisfied and the
representativestoworkinharmonyforthebestinterestsoftheestate; and(5)whenaperson
entitledtotheadministrationofanestatedesirestohaveanothercompetentpersonassociated
withhimintheoffice.

WhileitistruethatSection6(b)ofRule78providesthatthepreferencemaybedisregardedby
thecourtwheresaidpersonsneglecttoapplyforlettersofadministrationfor30daysafterthe
decedent'sdeath,suchfailureisnotsufficienttoexcludethewidowfromtheadministrationof
theestateofherhusband.Theremustbeaverystrongcasetojustifytheexclusionofthewidow
fromtheadministration.

WHEREFORE,thejudgmentofrespondentCourtofAppealsisMODIFIEDbyAFFIRMING
thevalidityoftheappointmentofrespondentRobertoDindoGabrielasjudicialadministrator
andORDERINGtheappointmentofpetitionerFelicitasJoseGabrielascoadministratrixin
SpecialProceedingNo.884458ofBranchXI,RegionalTrialCourtofManila.

Inthecaseatbar,thereisnocompellingreasonsufficienttodisqualifyFelicitasJoseGabriel
fromappointmentasadministratrixoftheestate.Justastheorderofpreferenceisnotabsolute
andmaybedisregardedforvalidcause,somaythe30dayperiodbelikewisewaivedsincethe
rulemerelyprovidesthatsaidletters,asanalternative,"maybegrantedtooneormoreofthe
principalcreditors."
Ontheotherhand,theappointmentofRobertoasadministratorshouldnotbenullified.The
determination of a person's suitability as administrator rests, toagreatextent, in the sound
judgmentof thecourt exercisingthe powerof appointmentand saidjudgment isnot tobe
interferedwithonappealunlessthesaidcourtisclearlyinerror.Administratorscanonlybe
removed for just cause. Thus, Section 2 of Rule 82 provides the legal and specific causes
authorizingtheprobatecourttoremoveanadministrator.Whilethecourthasamplediscretion
intheremovalofanadministrator,itmust,however,havesomefactlegallybeforeitinorderto
justifysuchremoval.Amereimportunitybysomeoftheheirsofthedeceased,therebeingno

[SPECPRODIGEST:DEANFEBLE]

issuanceofletterstestamentarywhichwerewasissuedinherfavoronOctober17,1955.Onor
aboutJuly26,1956,MariaVenturasubmittedaninventoryoftheestateofGregorioVentura.
OnJune17,1960,shefiledheraccountsofadministrationfortheyears1955to1960,
inclusive.SaidaccountofadministrationwasopposedbythespousesMercedesVenturaand
PedroCorpuzonJuly25,1960andbyExequielVictorioandGregoriaVenturaonAugust5,
1963.Bothoppositionsassailedtheveracityofthereportasnotreflectingthetrueincomeofthe
estateandtheexpenseswhichallegedlyarenotadministrationexpenses.ButMariaVentura
filedamotiontoholdinabeyancetheapprovaloftheaccountsofadministrationortohavetheir
approval without the opposition of the spouses Mercedes Ventura and Pedro Corpuz and
GregoriaVenturaandExequielVictorioonthegroundthatthequestionofthepaternityof
MercedesVenturaandGregoriaVenturaisstillpendingfinaldeterminationbeforetheSupreme
Courtandthatshouldtheybeadjudgedtheadulterouschildrenoftestator,asclaimed,theyare
notentitledtoinheritnortoopposetheapprovalofthecountsofadministration.

2.G.R.No.L26306April27,1988SECONDDIVISION
TESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE GREGORIO VENTURA MARIA VENTURA,
MIGUEL VENTURA and JUANA CARDONA v. GREGORIA VENTURA and HER
HUSBAND, EXEQUIEL VICTORIO, MERCEDES VENTURA and HER HUSBAND,
PEDROD.CORPUZ

Facts:AppellantMariaVenturaistheillegitimatedaughterofthedeceasedGregorioVentura
whileMiguelVenturaandJuanaCardonaarehissonandsurvivingspousewhoarealsothe
brotherandmotherofMariaVentura.Ontheotherhand,MercedesandGregoriaVenturaare
thedeceased'slegitimatechildrenwithhisformerwife,thelatePaulinaSimplicianobutthe
paternityofappelleeswasdeniedbythedeceasedinhiswill.OnDecember14,1953,Gregorio
Ventura filed a petition for the probate of his will (antemortem) which did not include
MercedesandGregoria,docketedasSpecialProceedingsNo.812.Inthesaidwill,theMaria
Ventura, one of the illegitimate child, was named and appointed by the testator to be the
executrixofhiswillandtheadministratrixofhisestate.Saidwillwasadmittedtoprobateon
January14,1954whichwasfollowedbyGregorioVenturasdeathonSeptember26,1955.On
October10,1955,MariaVenturafiledamotionforherappointmentasexecutrixandforthe

SpousesMercedesVenturaandPedroCorpuzfiledtheiroppositiontothemotionto
holdinabeyancetheapprovaloftheaccountsofadministrationonthegroundthatMercedesand
GregoriaVenturahadalreadybeendeclaredbytheCourtofFirstInstanceinCivilCasesNo.
1064and1476,whichcasesarependingbeforetheSupremeCourt,asthelegitimatechildrenof
GregorioVentura,hence,theyhavereasontoprotecttheirinterest.(*1064filedbyGregoriaand
MercedesVenturaclaimingthattheyarethelegitimatechildrenofGregorioVenturaandhis
wife Paulina Simpliciano, who died in 1943, and asking that onehalf of the properties be
declaredastheshareoftheirmotherintheconjugalpartnership,withthemastheonlyforced
heirs of their mother Paulina) (*1476 filed by Alipio, Eufracia and Juliana, all surnamed
Simpliciano,againstGregorioVenturaandthetwosisters,MercedesandGregoriaVentura,
allegingthatastheonlychildrenofModestoSimpliciano,solebrotherofPaulinaSimpliciano,
they,insteadofMercedesandGregoriaVentura,whomtheyclaimedareadulterouschildrenof
Paulinawithanotherman,TeodoroVenturaandassucharenotentitledtoinheritfromher,are
theoneswhoshouldinherittheshareofPaulinaSimplicianointheconjugalPartnershipwith
GregorioVentura)Themotiontoholdinabeyancetheapprovaloftheaccounts,filedbyMaria
Ventura,wasdenied.
OnJuly12,1963,theCourtsetthecaseforpretrialonAugust7,1963inconnection
withtheaccountsoftheexecutrixMariaVenturadatedJune17,1960andtheMotion,filedby
Mercedes Ventura, toAnnul Provisionof Willdated July14, 1962. Mercedes Venturaand
GregoriaVenturafiledtwomotions,namely:(1)motiontoremovetheexecutrixMariaVentura;
and(2)motiontorequirehertodeposittheharvestofpalayofthepropertyunderadministration
inabondedwarehouse.AnoppositiontosaidmotionswasfiledbytheheirsJuanaCardonaand
MiguelVenturaandbytheexecutrixMariaVenturaherself.Thegroundsofaforesaidjoint
motionstoremovetheexecutrixMariaVenturaare:(1)thatsheisgrosslyincompetent;(2)that
shehasmaliciouslyandpurposelyconcealedcertainpropertiesoftheestateintheinventory;(3)

[SPECPRODIGEST:DEANFEBLE]

that she is merely an illegitimate daughter who can have no harmonious relations with the
appellees;(4)thattheexecutrixhasneglectedtorenderheraccountsandfailedtocomplywith
theOrderoftheCourtofDecember12,1963,requiringhertofileheraccountsofadministration
for the years 1961 to 1963 and the Order of June 11, 1964, reiterating aforesaid Order of
December 12, 1963;and(5)thatsheiswithpermanentphysicaldefecthinderingherfrom
efficientlyperformingherdutiesasanexecutrix.
OnFebruary26,1964,theprobatecourtannulledtheinstitutionoftheheirsinthe
probatedwillofGregorioVentura.Themotionforreconsiderationoftheaforesaidorderfiled
byexecutrixMariaVenturawasdeniedonJune11,1964.
On May 17, 1965, the executrix Maria Ventura finally submitted her accounts of
administration covering the period 1961 to 1965 which were again opposed by the spouses
ExequielVictorioandGregoriaVenturaonSeptember21,1965andbythespousesMercedes
VenturaandPedroCorpuzonSeptember29,1965bothallegingamongothersthatsaidaccounts
donotreflectthetrueandactualincomeoftheestateandthattheexpensesreportedthereunder
arefake,exhorbitantandspeculative.OnJune2,1965,theexecutrixfiledhersupplemental
opposition to the aforesaid motions of Mercedes and Gregoria, and prayed that the joint
supplementalmotiontoremovetheexecutrixbedeniedorheldinabeyanceuntilafterthestatus
ofMercedesandGregoriaVenturaasheirsofthetestatorisfinallydecided.
OnJune3,1965,theCourt,findingthattheestatetaxeshavenotbeenpaid,ordered
theadministratrixtopaythesamewithinthirty(30)days.OnSeptember13,1965,thelower
courtdeniedthesuspensionoftheproceedingsanddeferredtheresolutionofthejointmotionto
remove executrix Maria Ventura until after the examination of the physical fitness of said
executrixtoundertakeherdutiesassuch.Also,itorderedthedepositofallpalaytobeharvested
inthenextagriculturalyearandsubsequentyearstobedepositedinabondedwarehousetobe
selectedbytheCourtandthepalaysodepositedshallnotbewithdrawnwithouttheexpress
permissionoftheCourt.
OnOctober5,1965,thecourtaquo,findingthattheexecutrixMariaVenturahas
squanderedthefundsoftheestate,wasinefficientandincompetent,hasfailedtocomplywith
the orders of the Court in the matter of presenting uptodate statements of accounts and
neglectedtopaytherealestatetaxesoftheestate,renderedthequestioneddecisionremoving
MariaVenturaasexecutrixandadministratrixoftheestateandinherplaceMercedesVentura
andGregoriaVenturaareherebyappointedjointadministratricesoftheestateuponfilingby
eachofthemofabondofP7,000.00.
ISSUE:(1)WONtheremovalofMariaVenturaasexecutrixislegallyjustified

(2) In case the removal is justified, WON Mercedes and Gregoria should be
preferredtobeadministratricesinsteadofJuanaCardonaandMiguelVentura

HELD:
(1)YES.TheSCruledinaseparatecaseofVenturav.Ventura,May27,1977,that
thedecisioninCivilCasesNos.1064and1476declaringthatappelleesMercedesandGregoria
VenturaarethelegitimatechildrenofthedeceasedGregorioVenturaandhiswife,Paulina
Simpliciano,andassuchareentitledtotheannulmentoftheinstitutionofheirsmadeinthe
probated will of said deceased became final and executory upon the finality of the order,
approvingtheirpartitiondirectedinthedecisioninquestion.Accordingly,followingArticle854
oftheCivilCode,"thepretentionoromissionofone,some,orallofthecompulsoryheirsinthe
directline,whetherlivingatthetimeoftheexecutionofthewillorbornafterthedeathofthe
testator,shallannultheinstitutionofheir;butthedevisesandlegaciesshallbevalidinsofaras
they are not inofficious," and as a result, intestacy follows, thereby rendering the previous
appointmentofMariaVenturaasexecutrixmootandacademic.Thiswouldnownecessitatethe
appointmentofanotheradministrator.
(2)YES.Section6(a),Rule78oftheRulesofCourtgoverns
ThesurvivingspouseofthedeceasedGregorioVenturaisJuanaCardonawhilethe
nextofkinare:MercedesandGregoriaVenturaandMariaandMiguelVentura.The"nextof
kin"hasbeendefinedasthosepersonswhoareentitledunderthestatuteofdistributiontothe
decedent'sproperty(Coopervs.Cooper).Itisgenerallysaidthat"thenearestofkin,whose
interestintheestateismorepreponderant,ispreferredinthechoiceofadministrator.'Among
members of a class the strongest ground for preference is the amount or preponderance of
interest.Asbetweennextofkin,thenearestofkinistobepreferred."
AsdecidedbythelowercourtandsustainedbytheSupremeCourt,Mercedesand
GregoriaVenturaarethelegitimatechildrenofGregorioVenturaandhiswife,thelatePaulina
Simpliciano.Therefore,asthenearestofkinofGregorioVenturatheyareentitledtopreference
overtheillegitimatechildrenofGregorioVentura,namely:MariaandMiguelVentura.Hence,
undertheaforestatedpreferenceprovidedinSection6ofRule78,thepersonorpersonstobe
appointedadministratorareJuanaCardona,asthesurvivingspouse,orMercedesandGregoria
Ventura as nearest of kin, or Juana Cardona and Mercedes and Gregoria Ventura in the
discretionoftheCourt,inordertorepresentbothinterests.

[SPECPRODIGEST:DEANFEBLE]

3.

[SPECPRODIGEST:DEANFEBLE]

4.TESTATEESTATEOFMARIAVDA.DEBIASCANv.ROSALINABIASCAN
G.R.No.138731,11December2000,THIRDDIVISION,(GonzagaReyes,J.)
FACTS:
RosalinaBiascansprayerforherappointmentasadministratrixoftheintestateestatesof
FlorencioBiascanandTimoteaZuluetabeforetheCourtofFirstInstance(CFI)ofManila
wasgranted.MariaVda.DeBiascan,thelegalwifeofFlorencio,opposedtheappointment.
ThethenpresidingJudgeSerafinCuevasresolvedtheff.inhisorderdatedApril2,1981:
(1) Maria is the lawful wife of Florencio, (2) Rosalina and her brother are the
acknowledgednaturalchildrenofFlorencio,(3)all3arethelegalheirsofFlorenciowho
are entitled to participate in the settlement proceedings, (4) the motion to set aside
Rosalinasappointmentisdenied,and(5)themotiontoapprovetheinventoryandappraisal
ofRosalinabedeferred.
MariareceivedsuchorderonApril9,1981throughAtty.Lopez,hercounsel.58daysafter
suchreceipt,MariafiledherMotionforReconsideration(MR)whichRosalinaopposed.
Approximately4mos.afterMariasfiling,the4th floorofthecityhallwascompletely
guttedbyfireandamongthoselostistherecordsofthesettlementproceedingsofthe
parties.Almost5yearsthereafter,Rosalinafiledapetitionforreconstitutionofthesaid
records.Duetothisdelay,itwasonlyonApril30,1985thattheRegionalTrialCourt
(RTC)ofManiladeniedMariasMR.
Sometimeafter,Mariadiedandhertestateestatealsobecamethesubjectofthesettlement
proceedings.Atty.Lopezwasappointedasthe interim specialadministratorandengaged
theservicesoftheMontecilloandOngsiakoLawOfficesonbehalfoftheestate.Thelaw
firmwasapprisedoftheorderdenyingMariasMRbutwhentheassociatescheckedif
therewasaproofofserviceoftheorderreceivedbyAtty.Lopez,therewasnone.Hewas
abletosecureacertificationfromtheclerkofcourtoftheRTCattestingtosuchfact.

[SPECPRODIGEST:DEANFEBLE]

AnoticeofappealwasfiledbythepetitionersfromtheordersofApril2,1981andApril
30,1985.WhilethisnoticewasdatedApril22,1996,thestampoftheRTConits1 stpage
clearlyindicatedthatitwasonlyreceivedonSeptember20,1996.Arecordofappealwas
likewisefiledbythepetitionersonthelatterdate.
RTCdeniedthepetitionersappealonthegroundthatitwasfiledoutoftime.Thenoticeof
appealitselfwasmanifestlylateasitwasfiledmorethan11yearsaftertheissuanceofthe
June11,1985order.MRdenied.Thepetitionfor certiorari withprayerformandatory
injunctionbeforetheCAanditsMRwerelikewisedenied.

ISSUE:WastheMRofpetitionersbelatedlyfiled?
RULING:YES.
-

Section1,Rule109oftheRulesofCourt(ROC)enumeratestheordersandjudgmentsin
specialproceedingswhichmaybethesubjectofanappeal. Anappealisallowedinthe
casesstatedintheprovisionsastheseorders,decrees/judgmentsissuedbyacourtina
special proceeding constitute a final determination of the rights of the parties so
appealing. Incontrast,interlocutoryordersarenotappealableasthesearemerely
incidentaltojudicialproceedings. Inthesecases,thecourtissuingsuchordersretains
controloverthesameandmaythusmodify,rescind/revokethesameonsufficientgrounds
atanytimebeforethefinaljudgment.

TherulingoftheRTCdenyingpetitionersmotiontosetasidetheorderappointing
RosalinaastheregularadministratrixoftheestateofFlorencioislikewiseaproper
subjectofanappeal.TheSChaspreviouslyheldthatanorderoftheRTCappointinga
regularadministratorofadeceasedpersonsestateisafinaldeterminationofthe
rightsofthepartiesthereunder,andisthus,appealable.Thisis incontrastwithan
orderappointingaspecialadministratorwhoisappointedonlyforalimitedtimeand
foraspecificpurpose.Becauseofthetemporarycharacterandspecialcharacterof
thisappointment,therulesdeemitnotadvisableforanypartytoappealfromsaid
temporaryappointment.

The order dated April 2, 1981 may be the proper subject of an appeal in a special
proceeding. Inspecialproceedings,suchastheinstantproceedingforsettlementof
estate,theperiodofappealfromanydecisionorfinalorderrenderedthereinisthirty
(30)days,anoticeofappealandarecordonappealbeingrequired.Theappealperiod
mayonlybeinterruptedbythefilingofamotionfornewtrial/reconsideration.Oncethe
appealperiodexpireswithoutanappeal/amotionforreconsiderationornewtrialbeing
perfected,thedecisionororderbecomesfinal.

Itiswellsettledthatjudgment/ordersbecomefinalandexecutorybyoperationoflaw
andnotbyjudicialdeclaration. Thus,finalityofajudgmentbecomesafactuponthe
lapse of the reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is perfected/motion for
reconsideration/newtrialisfiled.Thetrialcourtneednotevenpronouncethefinalityofthe
orderasthesamebecomesfinalbyoperationoflaw.Infact,thetrialcourtcouldnoteven
validlyentertainamotionforreconsiderationfiledafterthelapseoftheperiodfortakingan
appeal.Assuch,itisofnomomentthattheopposingpartyfailedtoobjecttothetimeliness
ofthemotionforreconsideration/thatthecourtdeniedthesameongroundsotherthan
timelinessconsideringthatatthetimethemotionwasfiled,theorderdatedApril2,1981
hadalreadybecomefinalandexecutory.Beingfinalandexecutory,thetrialcourtcanno
longeralter,modify/reversethequestionedorder. Thesubsequentfilingofthemotionfor
reconsiderationcannotdisturbthefinalityofthejudgment/order

5. ROWENAF.CORONA vs. THECOURTOFAPPEALS,ROMARICOG.VITUG,

AVELINO L. CASTILLO, NICANOR CASTILLO, KATHLEEN D. LUCHANGCO,
GUILLERMO LUCHANGCO, JR., ANTONIO LUCHANGCO, RODOLFO TORRES,
REYNALDOTORRESandPURISIMAT.POLINTAN (G.R.No.L59821,August30,
1982)(MELENCIOHERRERA,J.)

[SPECPRODIGEST:DEANFEBLE]

FACTS: Dolores Luchangco Vitug died in New York, U.S.A., leaving two Wills: one, a
holographicWill,whichexcludedherhusband,respondentRomaricoG.Vitug,asoneofher
heirs,andtheother,aformalWill,whichexpresslydisinheritedherhusbandRomarico"for
reasonofhisimproperandimmoralconductamountingtoconcubinage,whichisagroundfor
legalseparationunderPhilippineLaw";bequeathedherpropertiesinequalsharestohersisters
andniece;andappointedhernieceRowenaF.Corona,hereinpetitioner,asherExecutrix.
RowenafiledapetitionfortheprobateoftheWillsbeforetheCourtofFirstInstanceandforthe
appointmentofNenitaP.AlonteasAdministratorbecauseshe(Rowena)ispresentlyemployed
intheUnitedNationsinNewYorkCity. TheProbateCourtappointedNenitaP.Alonteas
SpecialAdministratrix,uponpaymentofbond.
Thesurvivinghusband,RomaricoVitug,opposedtheprobateofthetwowillsonthegroundthat
theywereprocuredthroughundueandimproperpressureandinfluence,havingbeenexecutedat
atimewhenthedecedentwasseriouslyillandunderthemedicalcareofDr.AntonioP.Corona,
petitioner's husband, and that the holographic Will impaired his legitime. Romarico further
prayed for his appointment as Special Administrator because the Special Administratrix
appointedisnotrelatedtotheheirsandhasnointeresttobeprotected,besides,thesurviving
spouseisqualifiedtoadminister.
TheProbateCourtsetasideitsOrderappointingNenitaasSpecialAdministratrix,andappointed
insteadthesurvivinghusband,RomaricoasSpecialAdministrator,essentiallyforthereasons
thatunderSection6,Rule78,oftheRulesofCourt,thesurvivingspouseisfirstintheorderof
preference for appointment as Administrator as he has an interest in the estate; that the
disinheritance of the surviving spouse is not among the grounds of disqualification for
appointmentasAdministrator;thatthenextofkinisappointedonlywherethesurvivingspouse
isnotcompetentorisunwillingtoservebesidesthefactthattheExecutrixappointed,isnotthe
nextofkinbutmerelyaniece,andthatthedecedent'sestateisnothingmorethanhalfofthe
unliquidatedconjugalpartnershipproperty.
TheCourtofAppealsdismissedpetitionersPetitionforcertioraristatingthattheProbateCourt
strictlyobservedtheorderofpreferenceestablishedbytheRules;thatpetitionerthoughnamed
ExecutrixintheallegedWill,declinedthetrustandinsteadnominatedastrangerasSpecial
Administrator; that the surviving husband has legitimate interests to protect which are not
adverse to the decedent's estate which is merely part of the conjugal property; and that
disinheritanceisnotadisqualificationtoappointmentasSpecialAdministratorbesidesthefact
thatthelegalityofthedisinheritancewouldinvolveadeterminationoftheintrinsicvalidityof
theWillwhichisdecidedlyprematureatthisstage.

ISSUE: WONtheorderofpreferencelaiddownintheRulesshouldbefollowedwherethe
survivingspouseisexpresslydisinherited.
HELD: TheCourtisoftheconsideredopinionthatpetitioner'snominee,NenitaF. Alonte,
should be appointed as coSpecial Administrator. The executrix's choice of Special
Administrator,consideringherowninabilitytoserveandthewidelatitudeofdiscretiongiven
herbythetestatrixinherWillisentitledtothehighestconsideration.ObjectionstoNenita's
appointmentongroundsofimpracticalityandlackofkinshipareovershadowedbythefactthat
justiceandequitydemandthatthesideofthedeceasedwifeandthefactionofthesurviving
husbandberepresentedinthemanagementofthedecedent'sestate.
ItisapropostoremindtheSpecialAdministratorsthatwhiletheymayhaverespectiveinterests
toprotect,theyareofficersoftheCourtsubjecttothesupervisionandcontroloftheProbate
Court and are expected to work for the best interests of the entire estate, its smooth
administration,anditsearliestsettlement.
Judgment modified and Probate court ordered to appoint Nenita F. Alonte as coSpecial
Administrator, properly bonded, who shall act as such jointly with the other Special
Administratoronallmattersaffectingtheestate.

[SPECPRODIGEST:DEANFEBLE]

Troubleensuedwhentherespondentstriedtoenforcethelaterorder.The petitioner resisted

whenDeputySheriffsJoseB.FloraandHonorioSantostriedtotakethesubjectvehiclesonthe
groundthattheywerehispersonalproperties.
6.G.R.No.78590June20,1988
PEDRODEGUZMAN,petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE JUDGE ZOSIMO Z. ANGELES, RTC BRANCH 58, MAKATI,
METRO,MANILA;DEPUTYSHERIFFSJOSEB.FLORAandHONORIOSANTOS
andELAINEG.DEGUZMAN,respondents.

FACTS:
OnMay5,1987,privaterespondentElaineG.deGuzmanfiledapetitionforthesettlementof
theintestateestateofManolitodeGuzman,beforetheRegionalTrialCourtofMakati,Metro
Manila.

OnMay22,1987,theprivaterespondentfiledamotionforwritofpossessionoverfive(5)
vehiclesregisteredunderthenameofManolitodeGuzman,allegedtobeconjugalpropertiesof
thedeGuzman'sbutwhichareatpresentinthepossessionoftheprivaterespondent'sfatherin
law,hereinpetitioner PedrodeGuzman.Themotionstatedthatascoownerandheir,the
privaterespondentmusthavethepossessionofsaidvehiclesinordertopreservetheassetsof
herlatehusband.Onthesameday,the lowercourt issuedanordersettingforhearingthe
motiononMay27,1987directingthedeputysherifftonotifypetitionerPedrodeGuzmanatthe
expenseoftheprivaterespondent.

OnMay28,1987,theprivaterespondentfiledher"ExParteMotiontoAppointPetitioneras
SpecialAdministratrixoftheEstateofManolitodeGuzmanwhichwasgrantedbythelower
court.Alsoinanotherorder,thelowercourtactedonthemotionforassistancewhichauthorized
Deputy Sheriffs Honorio Santos and Jose B. Flora together with some military men and/or
policementoassistprivaterespondentinpreservingthesubjectestate.

The petitioner contends that such order is a patent nullity, the respondent court not having
acquiredjurisdictiontoappointaspecialadministratrixbecausethepetitionforthesettlementof
the estate of Manolito de Guzman was not yet set for hearing and published for three
consecutiveweeks,asmandatedbytheRulesofCourt.Thepetitioneralsostressesthat the
appointmentofaspecialadministratrixconstitutesanabuseofdiscretionforhavingbeenmade
withoutgivingpetitionerandotherpartiesanopportunitytoopposesaidappointment.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a probate court may appoint a special administratrix and issue a writ of
possessionofallegedpropertiesofadecedentforthepreservationoftheestateinapetitionfor
thesettlementoftheintestateestateofthesaiddeceasedpersonevenbeforetheprobatecourt
causesnoticetobeserveduponallinterestedparties?

RULING:NO

Intheinstantcase,thereisnodoubtthattherespondentcourtacquiredjurisdictionoverthe
proceedingsuponthefilingofapetitionforthesettlementofanintestateestatebythe
privaterespondentsincethepetitionhadallegedallthejurisdictionalfacts,theresidence
ofthedeceasedperson,thepossibleheirsandcreditorsandtheprobablevalueoftheestate
ofthedeceasedManolitodeGuzmanpursuanttoSection2,Rule79oftheRevisedRulesof
Court.

Section3,Rule79oftheRevisedRulesofCourtprovides:

10

[SPECPRODIGEST:DEANFEBLE]

Courttosettimeforhearing.Noticethereof.Whenapetitionforlettersof
administrationisfiledinthecourthavingjurisdiction,suchcourtshallfixatimeand
placeforhearingthepetition,andshallcausenoticethereoftobegiventotheknown
heirsand creditorsof thedecedent, and toany otherpersons believedto havean
interestintheestate,inthemannerprovidedinsections3and4ofRule76.

Itisveryclearfromthisprovisionthattheprobatecourtmustcausenoticethroughpublication
ofthepetitionafteritreceivesthesame.Thepurposeofthisnoticeistobringalltheinterested
personswithinthecourt'sjurisdictionsothatthejudgmentthereinbecomesbindingonallthe
world. (Manalo v. Paredes, 47 Phil. 938; Moran, Comment on the Rules of Court Volume
3,1980Edition)WherenonoticeasrequiredbySection3,Rule79oftheRulesofCourthas
beengiventopersonsbelievedtohaveaninterestintheestateofthedeceasedperson;the
proceedingforthesettlementoftheestateisvoidandshouldbeannulled.Therequirementasto
noticeisessentialtothevalidityoftheproceedinginthatnopersonmaybedeprivedofhisright
topropertywithoutdueprocessoflaw.

Verily,noticethroughpublicationofthepetitionforthesettlementoftheestateofadeceased
person is jurisdictional, the absence of which makes court orders affecting other persons,
subsequenttothepetitionvoidandsubjecttoannulment.(SeeEusebiov.Valmores,supra)

Intheinstantcase,nonoticeasmandatedbysection3,Rule79oftheRevisedRulesofCourt
was caused to be given by the probate court before it acted on the motions of the private
respondenttobeappointedasspecialadministratrix,toissueawritofpossessionofalleged
propertiesofthedeceasedpersoninthewidow'sfavor,andtogranthermotionforassistanceto
preservetheestateofManolitodeGuzman.

Thepetitionerascreditoroftheestatehasasimilarinterestinthepreservationoftheestateas
theprivaterespondentwhohappenstobethewidowofdeceasedManolitodeGuzman.Hence,
thenecessityofnoticeasmandatedbytheRulesofCourt.Itisnotclearfromtherecordsexactly
whatemergencywouldhaveensuediftheappointmentofanadministratorwasdeferredatleast
untilthemostinterestedpartiesweregivennoticeoftheproposedaction.Nounavoidabledelay
intheappointmentofaregularadministratorisapparentfromtherecords.

Ifemergencysituationsthreateningthedissipationoftheassetsofanestatejustifyacourt's
immediatelytakingsomekindoftemporaryactionevenwithouttherequirednotice, nosuch
emergencyisshowninthiscase.Theneedforthepropernoticeevenfortheappointmentofa
specialadministratorisapparentfromthecircumstancesofthiscase.

TherespondentJudgehimselfexplainsthattheorderforthepreservationoftheestatewas
limitedtopropertiesnotclaimedbythirdparties.Ifcertainpropertiesarealreadyinthe
possessionoftheapplicantforspecialadministratrixandarenotclaimedbyotherpersons,
weseenoneedtohurryupandtakespecialactiontopreservethoseproperties.Asitis,the
sheriffstookadvantageofthequestionedordertoseizebyforce,propertiesfoundinthe
residenceofthepetitionerwhichhevehementlyclaimsareownedbyhimandnotbythe
estateofthedeceasedperson.

[SPECPRODIGEST:DEANFEBLE]

7.
8.
9.

11

12

[SPECPRODIGEST:DEANFEBLE]

whateverwaytheymayconsidermostadvantageousinthecircumstancesexisting.
Since thesaid Mercedesde Leonis notof soundjudgment, and discretionin the
handlingofmoney,itisnotmywishthatshebegivenanysumsofmoneyotherthan
forhercurrentneeds,exceptasmyexecutorsintheirjudgmentdeemadvantageousto
her.Incasetheamountavailableforthisbequestbesufficienttopurchaseanadequate
annuity,theexecutorsintheirdiscretionmaydoso.AndIattestanddirectthatIdo
notwishtointendthattheactionofmyexecutorsupontheirdiscretioninthismatter
bequestionedbyanyonewhatsoever.

10. In the Matter of the Testate Estate of BASIL GORDON BUTLER; MERCEDES
LEON, petitionerappellant, and ADA LOGGEY GHEZZI, administratrixappellant,
vs.
MANUFACTURERSLIFEINSURANCECO.,thruPhilippineBranch,oppositorappellee.
Facts:
TheessentialfactsarethatBasilGordonButler,formerlyaresidentofthePhilippines,diedin
Brooklyn, New York City, in 1945, leaving a will which was duly probated in the
Surrogate'sCourtofNewYorkCountyonAugust3ofthesameyear,andofwhichJames
Ross,Sr.,JamesMadisonRoss,Jr.andEwaldE.Selphwerenamedexecutors.Theestatehaving
beensettled,theproceedingswereclosedonJuly17,1947.
Thewillcontainedthisresiduaryclause:
After payment of these legacies and my just debts, including funeral expenses, I
devise,giveandbequeathallofmyremainingestateandpersonaleffectsofwhichI
maydiepossessedto MercedesdeLeon,ofMaypajo,Caloocan,Rizal,towit:the
personaleffectstobedeliveredtoherforheruseandprofit;themoneys,securitiesand
othervaluableproperty,notpersonaleffects,tobeheldintrustforherbenefitbymy
executors,attheirabsolutediscretion,tobeadministeredforherpermanentbenefitin

For the purpose of carrying out that testamentary provision, James Madison Ross was
appointedtrusteebytheNewYorkCountySurrogate'sCourtonFebruary4,1948.Once
appointed,andwiththebeneficiarysigningtheapplicationwithhim,Rossboughtanannuity
fromtheManufacturer'slifeInsuranceCo. atitsheadofficeinToronto,Canada,payingin
advance $17,091.03 as the combined premiums. The contract stipulates for a monthly
paymentof$57.60toMercedesduringherlifetime,withtheprovisothatintheeventof
herdeath,theresidue,ifany,ofthecapitalsumshallbepaidinonesumtoJamesMadison
Rossorhissuccessorastrustee.AndbeginningMay27,1948,MercedesdeLeonhasbeen
receiving the stipulated monthly allowance through the Insurance Company's Manila
Office.
Withtheobject,soitwouldseem,ofgettingholdatonceoftheentireamountinvestedin
theannuity,MercedesdeLeononSeptember4,1948,presentedButler'swillforprobate
intheCourtofFirstInstanceofManila,andsecuredtheappointmentofAdaLoggey
Ghezziasadministratrixwiththewillannexedearlyin1949.Theformerexecutorsdeclined
tobeappointedasadministratirixonthegroundthattheprobatehasalreadybeenmadeinNew
Yorkandthattherearenopropertiesoftheestateleft.TheRTCdeniedthemotion.Hence,this
petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court in Manila has jurisdiction to conduct probate proceedings of the
Butlerswill.
Ruling:NO
Thegeneralruleuniversallyrecognizedisthat administrationextendsonlytotheassetsofa
decedent found within the state or country where it was granted, so that an administrator
appointedinonestateorcountryhasnopoweroverpropertyinanotherstateorcountry.This
principleisspecificallyembodiedinsection4ofRule78oftheRulesofCourt.(SeeCodal)

[SPECPRODIGEST:DEANFEBLE]

Itismanifestfromthefactsbeforesetoutthatthefundsinquestionareoutsidethejurisdiction
oftheprobatecourtofManila.HavingbeeninvestedinanannuityinCanadaunderacontract
executedinthecountry,Canadaisthesuitsofthemoney.Thepartywhoseappearancethe
appellant seeks is only a branch or agency of the company which holds the funds in its
possession, theagency'sinterventionbeinglimitedtodeliveringtotheannuitantthechecks
madeoutandissuedfromthehomeoffice.Thereisnoshowingorallegationthatthefundshave
beentransferredorremovedtotheManilaBranch.
EvenifthemoneywereinthehandsoftheManilaBranch,yetitnolongerformspartofbutler's
estateandisbeyondthecontrolofthecourt.Ithaspassedcompletelyintothehandsofthe
companyinvirtueofacontractdulyauthorizedandvalidlyexecuted.
In the third place, the power of the court to cite a person for the purpose stated in the
administratrix'smotionisdefinedinsection7ofRule88(seeCodal)
Theappellantadministratrixdidnotentrusttotheappelleethemoneyshewantsthelatterto
account for, nor did the said money come to the appellee's possession in trust for the

13

administratrix. Inotherwords,theadministratrixisacompletestrangertothesubjectof
themotionandtotheappellee.Therebeingnocreditors,theonlysubjectofthemotion,we
incline to believe, is to enable Mercedes de Leon to get the legacy in a lump sum in
completedisregardofthewishesofthetestator,whoshoweddeepconcernforherwelfare,
andoftheannuitycontractwhichtheannuitantherselfappliedforinconjunctionwiththe
trustee.