SAN DIEGO v NOMBRE (Yap)
11 SCRA 165, May 29, 1964
Petitioner/s: MOISES SAN DIEGO, SR.
Respondent/s: ADELO NOMBRE and PEDRO ESCANLAR
Doctrine: The provisions on agency should not apply to a judicial
administrator. A judicial administrator is appointed by the court. He is not only
the representative of said Court, but also the heirs and creditors of the
estate. Before entering into his duties, he is required to file a bond. These
circumstances are not required in agency. The agent is only answerable to
his principal. The protection which law gives the principal in limiting the
powers and rights of an agent stems from the fact that control by the principal
can only be through agreements. Whereas, the acts of a judicial
administrator are subject to specific provisions of law and orders of the
appointing court.
Facts:
(1) Respondent Adelo Nombre was the duly constituted judicial
administrator. As such, he leased one of the properties of the
estate—a fishpond—to Pedro Escanlar, the other respondent. The
terms of the lease was for 3 years, with a yearly rental of P3,000.
The transaction was done without previous authority or approval of
the Court.
(2) A year after, Nombre was removed as administrator, and was
replaced by one Sofronio Campillanos. Escalanlar was cited for
contempt for allegedly refusing to surrender the fishpond to the newly
appointed administrator.
(3) Subsequently, Campillanos filed a motion for authority to execute a
lease contract over the fishpond, in favor of petitioner Moises San
Diego, for 5 years with yearly rental of P5,000. Escalanlar was not
notified of the said motion. Nombre, on the other hand, opposed to
the motion, pointing out that the fishpond was leased by him to
Escalandar for 3 years. He alleged that the validity of the lease
contract entered into by a judicial administrator must be recognized
unless declared void in a separate action.
(4) The lower court declared the contract in favor of Escanlar null and
void for want of judicial authority and that San Diego offered better
lease conditions than Escanlar. In light of this, Escanlar agreed to
increase the rental to P5,000 after the termination of his original
contract. However, the trial judge stated that such contract was
fraudulent and executed in bad faith because Nombre was removed
as administrator and the rentals of the property was inadequate.
(5) However, on appeal, the CA ruled:
No such limitation on the power of a judicial administrator to grant
lease of property placed under his custody is provided for in the
present law. Under Art. 1647, it is only when the lease is to be
recorded in the Registry of Property that it cannot be instituted
without special authority. Thus, regardless of the period of lease,
there is no need for special authority unless the contract is to be
recorded in the Registry.
Rule 85, Sec. 3 of the ROC authorizes a judicial administrator to
administer the estate of the deceased not disposed by will, for
purposes of liquidation and distribution. He may, therefore, exercise
all acts of administration without special authority of the Court; such
as the leasing the property. And where the lease has been formally
entered into, the court cannot, in the same proceeding, annul the
same. The proper remedy would be a separate action by the
administrator or the heirs to annul the lease.
(6) On appeal to the SC, petitioner contends that Art. 1878(8) limits the
right of a judicial administrator to lease the real property without prior
court authority and approval, if it exceeds 1 year. The lease in favor
of Escalanlar, being 3 years and without court approval, is therefore
void.
Issue: W/N the provisions on Agency should apply in this case. (NO)
Held:
The provisions on agency should not apply to a judicial administrator. A
judicial administrator is appointed by the court. He is not only the
representative of said Court, but also the heirs and creditors of the estate.
Before entering into his duties, he is required to file a bond. These
circumstances are not required in agency. The agent is only answerable to
his principal. The protection which law gives the principal in limiting the
powers and rights of an agent stems from the fact that control by the principal
can only be through agreements. Whereas, the acts of a judicial
administrator are subject to specific provisions of law and orders of the
appointing court.
Fallo: The decision of the CA was affirmed.