Wilson S. Uy, etc. Vs. The Hon. Court Of Appeals, et al (G.R. No. 167979.

March 15, 2006

Civil Law – Administrator of Estate

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. Under
Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, the preference to whom letters of administration may be
granted are as follows:
SEC. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. – If no executor is
named in the will, or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to
give bond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall be granted:

(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or
both, in the discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife,
or next of kin, requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to serve;

(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or the
person selected by them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or widow, or next of kin,
neglects for thirty (30) days after the death of the person to apply for administration or to request
that administration be granted to some other person, it may be granted to one or more of the
principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve;

(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be

granted to such other person as the court may select.

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 person’s
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.

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.

Thus, petitioner’s 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.