Baluyut v. Pano (1976) executor in a will.

Such designation is not binding on the court

Facts:
- Sotero Baluyut died, leaving an estate allegedly valued at
not less than P2M. A few weeks later, his nephew, Alfredo,
filed in CFI Quezon City a verified petition for letters of
administration, alleging that his widow, Encarnacion, was
mentally incapable of acting as administratrix. He had
surmised that Sotero had executed a will, and prayed that he
be appointed regular administrator but in the meantime,
special administrator. CFI appointed his special
administrator with P100k bond.
- Encarnacion alleged, in her verified opposition, that she was
unaware that Sotero executed a will. She said the allegation
that she was mentally incapacitated was libelous, and
wanted to be appointed administratrix. CFI cancelled
Alfredos appointment, and after asking a series of questions
to Encarnacion while she was on the witness stand, found
her healthy and mentally qualified.
- Alfredo filed a motion for reconsideration, and the CFI
appointed him and Jose Espino as special administrators.
Espino was former governor of Nueva Vizcaya and an
alleged acknowledged natural child of Sotero.
- Encarnacion wanted Espino to be appointed administrator
should she not be appointed administratrix, but she filed an
urgent motion to be appointed administratrix. She said that
Alfredo had no more interest in the estate because as a
mere collateral relative, he was excluded by Espino and
other supposed descendants. Alfredo opposed, saying that
Espino had other parents, and that Encarnacion was
declared incompetent by the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court of QC in a special proceeding for
guardianship.
- At the hearing of Encarnacions urgent motion, no oral and
documentary evidence was presented. She was merely
asked questions, which she was able to answer. She was
appointed regular administratrix, the court convinced of her
capacity and that her sufficient understanding justified her
appointment. She was issued letters of administration.
- Alfredo filed a certiorari case, and the court issued a
restraining order enjoining Encarnacion and the Espino
spouses and Jude Pano from enforcing the order and
disposing of the funds or assets of the estate. Encarnacion
said that Alfredo only instituted the administration
proceeding after he had failed to get from her a check for
P500k belonging to Soteros estate, and that he grossly
misrepresented that she was mentally incompetent; the
findings of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court were
issued in a blitzkrieg manner because it was based on the
report of a Dr. Lapuz, filed one day before the order was
issued; and besides, its not the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court which should decide her competency to act
as administratrix.
and does not automatically entitle him to the issuance of letters
testamentary. He might have been fit to act as executor when
the will was executed but supervening circumstances might
have rendered him unfit for that position.
In this case, the court merely interrogated her in order to
satisfy itself on her mental capacity. It did not give Alfredo a
chance to contest her qualifications. He was the one who had
raised the issue as to her competency. The probate court had
wrongly assumed that he had no interest in the estate as, it
has now turned out, he is one of the legatees named in the will.
The proceeding in the lower court must be converted into a
testamentary proceeding. After the will is probated, the prior
letters of administration should be revoked and proceedings for
the issuance of letters testamentary or of administration under
the will should be conducted. It is imperative that a hearing be
held to determine Encarnacions fitness to act as executrix or
administratrix. Persons questioning her capacity should be
given an adequate opportunity to be heard and to present
evidence.
The lower court departed from the usual course of probate
procedure in summarily appointing Mrs. Baluyut as
administratrix on the assumption that Alfredo was not an
interested party.
Doctrine/s: Being named executor in a will does not
automatically grant letters testamentary or of administration
to such persons as such is not binding on the court. A
hearing must be held to determine the competence of the
administrator/administratrix or executor/executrix to perform
their duties, and those who oppose such must be given
adequate opportunity to be heard and to present their
evidence. Other courts findings on persons competence is
also not binding on the probate court.
Dispositive: Order appointing Encarnacion as administratrix
is SET ASIDE, letters of administration issued to her are
CANCELLED, and the probate court is directed to conduct
further proceedings.
Digested by: Feliciano

Issue: Was Encarnacions appointment as administratrix

proper? NO.

Held:
While the lower court was correct in assuming that she, as the
surviving spouse, enjoyed preference in the granting of letters
of administration, it does not follow that she should be named
administratrix without conducting a full-dress hearing on her
competency to discharge that trust.
A hearing has to be held in order to ascertain fitness to act
as executor, even if a person has been designated as the
SpecPro Dela Cerna | 1