Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ISSUE:
Whether the lower court acted with grave abuse of discretion in
appointing Mrs. Baluyut as administratrix.
G.R. No. 162934 November 11, 2005 heirs of Belinda, stating that they were "mere strangers to the
case" and that their cause could better be ventilated in a separate
HEIRS OF BELINDA DAHLIA A. CASTILLO, namely, BENA JEAN,
proceeding.
DANIEL, MELCHOR, MICHAEL and DANIBEL, all surnamed CASTILLO
vs. DOLORES LACUATA-GABRIEL The appellate court dismissed the petition for certiorari, and ruled
that the probate court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
appointing Dolores as special administratrix.
FACTS
ISSUE
Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel, wife of Lorenzo B. Almoradie, died in
Malabon City, Metro Manila, leaving behind a sizable inheritance WON the appointment of respondent as special administratrix of the
consisting mostly of real estate and shares of stock. estate left by Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel was proper.
A little over a month after Crisantas death, her mother, Crisanta
HELD
Santiago Vda. de Yanga, commenced an intestate proceeding
before the RTC of Malabon City. She alleged, that to her The petition is without merit.
knowledge, her daughter died intestate leaving an estate with an
estimated net value of 1,500,000.00 and that such estate was In ruling against the petitioners and dismissing their petition, the CA
being managed by her wastrel and incompetent son-in-law, ratiocinated as follows:
Lorenzo, and by two other equally incompetent persons. She The appointment of a special administrator lies entirely in the
prayed that letters of administration be issued to her son, Mariano discretion of the court. The order of preference in the
Yanga, Jr. However, the RTC appointed Lorenzo as administrator. appointment of a regular administrator under Section 6, Rule
Meantime, the marriage between Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel and 78 of the Rules of Court does not apply to the selection of a
Lorenzo Almoradie was declared void for being bigamous. The RTC special administrator. In the issuance of such appointment,
then removed Lorenzo as administrator and appointed Mariano, Jr. which is but temporary and subsists only until a regular
in his stead. administrator is appointed, the court determines who is
entitled to the administration of the estate of the decedent. On
Belinda Dahlia Y. Almoradie Castillo, claiming to be the only this point, We hold that the preference of private respondent
legitimate child of Lorenzo and Crisanta, filed a motion for Dolores Gabriel is with sufficient reason.
intervention, which motion was, however, held in abeyance
pending some incidents in the CA. The ruling of the CA is correct. The Court has repeatedly held that the
appointment of a special administrator lies in the sound discretion of
Roberto Y. Gabriel, the legally adopted son of Crisanta Y. Gabriel, the probate court. A special administrator is a representative of a
filed before the RTC of Malabon City a petition for probate of an decedent appointed by the probate court to care for and preserve his
alleged will and for the issuance of letters testamentary in his favor. estate until an executor or general administrator is appointed. When
He alleged that he discovered his mothers will on October 25, 1989 appointed, a special administrator is regarded not as a representative
in which he was instituted as the sole heir of the testatrix, and of the agent of the parties suggesting the appointment, but as the
designated as alternate executor for the named executor therein, administrator in charge of the estate, and, in fact, as an officer of the
Francisco S. Yanga, a brother of Crisanta, who had predeceased the court. As such officer, he is subject to the supervision and control of
latter. the probate court and is expected to work for the best interests of the
entire estate, especially its smooth administration and earliest
On June 2, 1990, Belinda Castillo died. The heirs of Belinda, namely,
settlement. The principal object of appointment of temporary
Bena Jean, Daniel, Melchor, Michael, and Danibel, all surnamed
administrator is to preserve the estate until it can pass into hands of
Castillo, filed a Motion praying that they be substituted as party-
person fully authorized to administer it for the benefit of creditors
litigants in lieu of their late mother Belinda.
and heirs. In many instances, the appointment of administrators for
The probate court appointed Roberto Y. Gabriel as special the estates of decedents frequently become involved in protracted
administrator of his mothers estate. litigations, thereby exposing such estates to great waste and losses
unless an authorized agent to collect the debts and preserve the
On April 16, 2001, Roberto Gabriel died. His widow, Dolores L.
assets in the interim is appointed. The occasion for such an
Gabriel, filed a "Manifestation and Motion"where she informed the
appointment, likewise, arises where, for some cause, such as a
probate court of her husbands death and prayed that she be
pendency of a suit concerning the proof of the will, regular
admitted as substitute in place of her late husband, and be
administration is delayed.
appointed as administratrix of the estate of Crisanta Gabriel as
well. Section 1, Rule 80 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
The heirs of Belinda opposed Dolores manifestation and motion. Section 1. Appointment of Special Administrator. When there
They averred that Dolores was not Crisanta Gabriels next of kin, let is delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration by
alone the lawful wife of the late Roberto. any cause including an appeal from the allowance or
disallowance of a will, the court may appoint a special
Bena Jean filed a "Motion for Appointment as Administrator of the
administrator to take possession and charge of the estate of the
Estate of Crisanta Y. Gabriel" praying that she be appointed
deceased until the questions causing the delay are decided and
administratrix of the estate of her grandmother Crisanta.
executors or administrators appointed.
Dolores opposed the motion of Bena Jean, claiming that the latter
The new Rules have broadened the basis for the appointment of an
has neither proven her kinship with Crisanta Gabriel nor shown any
administrator, and such appointment is allowed when there is delay
particular qualification to act as administratrix of the estate.
in granting letters testamentary or administration by any cause, e.g.,
The lower court appointed Dolores as special administratrix. The parties cannot agree among themselves. Nevertheless, the discretion
probate court merely noted the motion for substitution filed by the to appoint a special administrator or not lies in the probate court.
The basis for appointing a special administrator under the Rules is G.R. No. 167979 March 15, 2006
broad enough to include any cause or reason for the delay in granting
WILSON S. UY, as Judicial Administrator of the Intestate Estate of
letters testamentary or of administration as where a contest as to the
the Deceased JOSE K. C. UY vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON.
will is being carried on in the same or in another court, or where there
ANASTACIO C. RUFON and JOHNNY K. H. UY
is an appeal pending as to the proceeding on the removal of an
executor or administrator, or in cases where the parties cannot agree YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
among themselves. Likewise, when from any cause general
administration cannot be immediately granted, a special FACTS
administrator may be appointed to collect and preserve the property Jose K.C. Uy died intestate on August 20, 1996 and is survived by
of the deceased. his spouse, Sy Iok Ing Uy, and his five children, namely, Lilian S. Uy,
It is obvious that the phrase "by any cause" includes those incidents Lilly S. Uy, Livian S. Uy-Garcia , Lilen S. Uy and Wilson S. Uy
which transpired in the instant case clearly showing that there is a (Petitioner).
delay in the probate of the will and that the granting of letters Special Proceedings was instituted and Lilia Hofilea was appointed
testamentary will consequently be prolonged necessitating the as special administrator of the estate of the deceased.
immediate appointment of a special administrator.
Petitioner moved to reconsider the order appointing Lilia Hofilea
The petitioners strenuous invocation of Section 6, Rule 78 of the as special administrator with prayer that letters of administration
Rules of Court is misplaced. The rule refers to the appointment of be issued to him instead.
regular administrators of estates; Section 1, Rule 80, on the other
hand, applies to the appointment of a special administrator. It has Judge Ramon B. Posadas revoked Lilia Hofileas appointment as
long been settled that the appointment of special administrators is special administrator and denied her petition to be appointed as
not governed by the rules regarding the appointment of regular regular administrator. Meanwhile, letters of administration were
administrators. Thus, in Roxas v. Pecson, this Court ruled: granted to petitioner.
It is well settled that the statutory provisions as to the prior or Johnny K. H. Uy (Private Respondent) filed a motion to intervene,
preferred right of certain persons to the appointment of praying that he be appointed as administrator of the estate in lieu
administrator under Section 1, Rule 81, as well as the statutory of petitioner. He alleged that he is the brother and a creditor of the
provisions as to causes for removal of an executor or administrator deceased, and has knowledge of the properties that should be
under section 653 of Act No. 190, now Section 2, Rule 83, do not apply included in the estate.
to the selection or removal of special administrator. ... As the law does The trial court initially denied private respondents motion to
not say who shall be appointed as special administrator and the intervene, but reconsidered its earlier order and appointed private
qualifications the appointee must have, the judge or court has respondent as co-administrator of the estate.
discretion in the selection of the person to be appointed, discretion
which must be sound, that is, not whimsical or contrary to reason, Petitioner then moved that private respondent bring into the
justice or equity. estate properties belonging to the deceased, which motion was
granted by the trial court.
Not satisfied with the compliance of private respondent, petitioner
reiterated his motion for removal of the former as co-
administrator, but the same was denied.
The trial court found that private respondent substantially
complied with the order directing him to bring into the estate
properties owned by or registered in the name of the deceased not
subject of any adverse claim or controversy when he listed the
alleged properties suspected to be concealed, embezzled or
conveyed away by the persons named therein. Thus, it found no
cogent reason to remove private respondent as co-administrator.
The Court of Appeals, on appeal, held that the refusal of the trial
court to remove private respondent as co-administrator of the
estate is neither an error of jurisdiction nor a grave abuse of
discretion; that the appointment of private respondent was
justified; that the order of preference under Section 6 of Rule 78 of
the Rules of Court does not rule out the appointment of co-
administrators; that the institution of a case for annulment of title
and reconveyance against respondent does not justify private
respondents removal as co-administrator.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in
appointing private respondent as co-administrator to the estate of
the deceased
HELD
The petition is without merit.
The main function of a probate court is to settle and liquidate the
estates of deceased persons either summarily or through the process
of administration. In the case at bar, the trial court granted letters of
administration to petitioner and thereafter to private respondent as
co-administrator.
The order of preference in the appointment of an administrator
depends on the attendant facts and circumstances. In Sioca v. Garcia,
this Court set aside the order of preference, to wit:
It is well settled that a probate court cannot arbitrarily and
without sufficient reason disregard the preferential rights of
the surviving spouse to the administration of the estate of the
deceased spouse. But, if the person enjoying such preferential
rights is unsuitable, the court may appoint another person.
The determination of a persons suitability for the office of
administrator rests, to a great extent, in the sound judgment of
the court exercising the power of appointment and such
judgment will not be interfered with on appeal unless it
appears affirmatively that the court below was in error.
x x x Unsuitableness may consist in adverse interest of some
kind or hostility to those immediately interested in the estate.
x x x. (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
In the instant case, the order of preference was not disregarded by
the trial court. Instead of removing petitioner, it appointed private
respondent, a creditor, as co-administrator since the estate was
sizeable and petitioner was having a difficult time attending to it
alone.
A co-administrator performs all the functions and duties and
exercises all the powers of a regular administrator, only that he is not
alone in the administration. The practice of appointing co-
administrators in estate proceedings is not prohibited. In Gabriel v.
Court of Appeals, this Court reaffirmed that jurisprudence allows the
appointment of co-administrators under certain circumstances, to
wit:
Under both Philippine and American jurisprudence, the
appointment of co-administrators has been upheld for various
reasons, viz: (1) to have the benefit of their judgment and
perhaps at all times to have different interests represented; (2)
where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or
factions be represented in the management of the estate of the
deceased; (3) where the estate is large or, from any cause, an
intricate and perplexing one to settle; (4) to have all interested
persons satisfied and the representatives to work in harmony
for the best interests of the estate; and (5) when a person
entitled to the administration of an estate desires to have
another competent person associated with him in the office.
(Emphasis supplied)
Thus, petitioners argument that the trial court cannot re-open the
issue of the appointment of an administrator without removing the
incumbent administrator is erroneous. In probate proceedings,
considerable latitude is allowed a probate court in modifying or
revoking its own orders as long as the proceedings are pending in the
same court and timely applications or motions for such modifications
or revocations are made by the interested parties. In the instant case,
the estate of the deceased has not yet been settled and the case is
still within the jurisdiction of the court.