D-4. Special Administrator RULE 80 Sections 1-3
Section 1. Appointment of special administrator. -
When there is delay
in granting letters testamentary or of administration
by any cause including an appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a will,
the court may appoint a special administrator
to take possession
and charge of the estate of the deceased
until the questions causing the delay are decided
and executors or administrators appointed.
Section 2. Powers and duties of special adminsitrator. -
Such special administrator shall
take possession and charge of the
goods,
chattels,
rights,
credits,
and estate of the deceased
and preserve the same for the executors or administrator afterwards appointed,
and for that purpose
may commence and maintain suits as administrator.
He may sell only such
perishable
and other property as the court orders sold.
A special administrator shall not be liable to pay any debts of the deceased
unless so ordered by the court.
Section 3. When powers of special administrator cease. Transfer of effects. Pending suits. -
When letters testamentary or of administration are granted on the estate of the deceased,
the powers of the special administrator shall cease,
and he shall forthwith deliver to the executor or administrator the
goods,
chattels,
money,
and estate of the deceased in his hands.
The executor or administrator may prosecute to final judgment
suits commenced by such special administrator.
DE GUZMAN V. ANGELES
Short summary: This is a dispute between the surviving spouse (appointed special adminsitratrix) and the father in law as to the properties allegedly belonging to the estate of the deceased but was being claimed by, and was in the possession of, the father in law. Father in law now assails the appointment of daughter in law as special administratrix, as well as the order for writ of possession, even before notice was given to him. Court held that NOTICE is needed, even for the appointment of a special administrator, as it is a position of trust and confidence which needs notice (to inform interested parties) and hearing where the petitioner who seeks to be appointed proves his qualifications, and the oppositors contests it.
Facts:
-Manolito de Guzman died intestate.
-Elaine de Guzman (surviving spouse) filed petition for settlement of intestate estate of the decedent before RTC Makati, alleging the following:
Manolito died in Makati, as a resident of Makati
Left properties which were acquired after the marriage of Manolito and Elaine (thus Conjugal property)
Possible creditors
Copulsory heirs: Elaine (SS), 2 minor Children
Manolito died intestate (w/o a will)
Elaine most qualified to be the administrator
+ filed motion for writ of possession over 5 of Manolito's vehicles (who were in the possession of Manolito's father - Pedro de Guzman - the petitioner): granted!
-Petitioner made appearance, sought for extension to file opposition to the Motion for writ of possession
-Elaine filed EX-Parte Motion to be Appoint as the Special Administatrix. Motion set for hearing, all parties directed to be notified (BUT NO NOTICE GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER!!!)
- RTC granted:
* made Elaine the special administratrix
* Granted motion for assistance of some military men and/or policemen to assist Elaine in preserving the estate of Manolito
-Elaine tried to enforce order. Pedro de Guzman (petitioner) resisted, resulting in a "near shoot-out between members of the Makati Police and CAPCOM soldiers which was diffused by the arrival of Mayor Binay and the agreement that the bulldozer sought to be taken be placed in Mayor Binay's custody while the parties sought for clarification
-CLARIFICATION: the order only covers properties of the estate, not those claimed by 3P
-Pedro then filed motion, giving list of properties he claimed he owns; also filed this petition to annul the orders given
WON a probate court may appoint a special administratrix and issue a writ of possession of alleged properties of a decedent for the preservation of the estate in a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of the said deceased person even before the probate court causes notice to be served upon all interested parties pursuant to section 3, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court?
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN JURISDICTION OF THE PROBATE COURT OVER THE PROCEEDINGS vs. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSONS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE
The probate court, in accordance w/ R79.3, must first cause notice through publication of petition!
-purpose: bring all interested persons w/n the court's jurisdiction so that the judgment therein becomes binding on all the world
-if no notice:
proceeding for settlement of estate is void and should be annulled. OR else, may deprive a person of his property w/o due process of law
The court orders affecting other persons subsequent to the petition filed are void and subject to annulment
-here: no notice before the court:
acted on the motion of Elaine to be the Special Administratrix
Issued a writ of possession of alleged properties of the deceased person
Granted the motion for assistance to preserve the estate of Manolito
-if notice was given, then the creditors and other interested persons could have participated in the proceedings, especially because Elaine immediately filed a motion to have herself appointed as administratrix; Pedro appears to be the biggest creditor of the estate who has the largest interest in it
Special administrator: representative of decedent appointed by the probate court to care for and preserve his estate until an executor or general administrator is appointed.
WON the orders could have been issued w/o notice: ONLY if there's urgency
-Here: no necessity/urgency for the issuance of the said orders w/o first giving notice to interested persons; no avoidable delay
-emergency situations threatening the dissipation of the assets of an estate justify a court's immediately taking some kind of temporary action even without the required notice
So GR: give notice
X: emergency situations
Why give notice even for appointment of special administrator:
"The position of special administrator, by the very nature of the powers granted thereby, is one of trust and confidence. It is a fiduciary position and, therefore, requires a comprehensive determination of the suitability of the applicant to such position. Hence, under Philippine jurisprudence, it has been settled that the same fundamental and legal principles governing the choice of a regular administrator should be taken in choosing the special administrator (Francisco, Vol. VB, page 46 citing the cases of Ozaeta v. Pecson, Ibid. and Roxas v. Pecson, Ibid.)
"In order to fully and correctly ascertain the suitability of the applicant to the trust, a hearing is obviously necessary wherein the applicant can prove his qualifications and at the same time affording oppositors, given notice of such hearing and application, the opportunity to oppose or contest such application.
ON inhibition of judge: Judge voluntarily inhibited himself so moot
DE GUZMAN V. GUADIZ
Short summary: the alleged sole universal heir of a will filed a petition for letters testamentary, he also being appointed as the executor in the will. Persons were claiming that they owned the properties through a donation made by the decedent during his lifetime, and at the same time are in possession of the properties, opposed. Petitioner filed for determination of the validity of the donation, at the same time filed for petition to be appointed as the special administrator which the lower court denied since the oppositors were already administering the property. SC held that there are sufficient grounds for appointing a special administrator, as there was delay in the probate of the will and the appointment of the executor. Should distinguish between neutral possession and partisan possession
Facts:
-Feliciano de Guzman filed petition for probate of a will alleged to have been executed by Catalina Bajacan
-the will instituted Feliciano as Catalina's sole and universal heir
-the will also named Feliciano as the executor
-Respondents filed MTD/Opposition: All properties of Catalina were now owned by them y virtue of a Donation inter vivos executed by Arcadia and Catalina Bajacan in their favor
-decision on motion to dismiss deferred until presentation of evidence
-Feliciano filed a motion to be appointed as the special administrator (delay in the probate of the will and appointment of executor if MTD unresolved)
-that the property of the decedent consists of rice land which would yield P50k worth of rice twice a year so somebody must represent the estate pending the probate of the will
RTC: denied the motion for appointment of a special administrator
---the properties are in the custody of the oppositors who claim they own the property so no need to appoint special administrator to take care of the properties where there is a considerable delay
WON a special administrator should have been issued to administer the properties allegedly of the estate when the oppositors who claim ownership over the property are in possession of the same? YES!!!
*Look at R80.1*
-under R80.1, the probate court may appoint a special administrator when:
There is delay in granting letters testamentary/administration
Irrelevant whatever caused the delay
For period: until the cause of delay is decided and executors or administrators are appointed
-the appointment of a special administrator lies in the DISCRETION OF THE COURT - which must be sound: not whimsical, not contrary to reason, justice, equity or legal principle
*What types of delays usually considered/sufficient grounds for granting special administration:
Where a contest as to the will is being carried on in the same or in another court
Where there is an appeal pending as to the proceeding on the removal of an executor/administrator
Where the parties cannot agree among themselves
When general administration cannot be immediately granted
*reasons why appoint a special administrator:
*"The reason for the practice of appointing a special administrator rests in the fact that estates of decedents frequently become involved in protracted litigation, thereby being exposed to great waste and losses if there is no authorized agent to collect the debts and preserve the assets in the interim. The occasion for such an appointment usually arises where, for some cause, such as a pendency of a suit concerning the proof of the will, regular administration is delayed. No temporary administration can be granted where there is an executor in being capable of acting, however."
*"Principal object of appointment of temporary administrator is to preserve estate until it can pass into hands of person fully authorized to administer it for benefit of creditors and heirs." 23
Here, what are the causes of delay:
The oppositors claimed that they own the properties of the estate through a donation allegedly made by the decedent. The petitioner thus filed a civil case for the annulment of the deed of donation pending the hearing of the probate of the will. The same judge was the judge in the civil case, and ruled that petitioner had no personality to sue, the will from which he claims interest in the property not yet being probated
The hearings for the probate of the will has been postponed several times
And upon filing of this petition, the judge postponed the hearing of the probate of the will pending the outcome of this case
ON THE POSSESSION OF THE OPPOSITORS OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION: should have differentiated between partisan possession vs. neutral possession
-when appointed, a special administrator is regarded, not as a representative of the agent of the parties suggesting the appointment, but as the administrator in charge of the estate, an officer of the court.
REYNOSO V. SANTIAGO
Short summary: Initially an intestate proceeding, the father and son now wants a testate proceeding to be held for the probate of the will of the decedent, it being held by the CA as a valid will. They also wanted father to be appointed as regular administrator, and the special administrator to render an accounting. Court held that it is w/n the discretion of the judge to decide WON a probate proceeding would be initiated separately or in the same proceedings and as to the appointment of an administrator, a regular administrator should be appointed but not necessarily the father.
Facts:
-Salvadora Obispo died
1st proceeding (SP no. 2914): Leoncio Cadiz and other heirs of Salvadora applied for the administration of the property of the deceased - they alleged that the decedent died intestate
>>>OPPOSITION by the surviving spouse (Victorio) and the eldest son (Juan): there's a will, then counter-petitioned for the probate of the will.
TC: rejected the opposition: the will was forged!
>>>Appointed Meliton Palabrica as Special Administrator
CA: will was authentic and drawn w/ all the formalities of law; appoint albacea
-in accordance with the CA decision, the father and son tandem filed 2 petitions:
Petition to order Special administrator Meliton Palabrica to
turn over the properties of the deceased
Turn over the proceeds of the products on the properties to Victorio, the surviving spouse
To render an accounting w/n reasonable time
…and for the closing of the special proceedings for the Intestate estate
Petition for probate of the testate estate of deceased Salvadora Obispo
…prayed that Victorio be appointed as executor of Salvadora's estate
…also contained prayer in the 1st petition
-the 2 petitions were both heard by the same judge, but decided separately.
The action on the petition should be w/held for the time being, because of the pendency on appeal of a case in which the special administrator is plaintiff and Juan and Victorio are defendants and appellants (WON the coconut land is conjugal property or exclusive property of the husband). Thus, in accordance w/R87.8, the surviving spouse cannot be appointed as administrator because he has a claim against the estate.
Not necessary to open another expediente. Could have the probate of the testate estate in the same proceeding
WON a separate special proceeding for the probate of the will of Salvadora necessary? It depends on the judge.
-Whether the intestate proceeding already commenced should be discontinued and a new proceeding under a separate number and title should be constituted is entirely a matter of form and lies within the sound discretion of the court. In no manner does it prejudice the substantial rights of any heirs or creditors. Amor propio is perhaps the only thing is at stake on this phase of the controversy.
WON a regular administrator should be appointed by the court? YES, but not automatically the husband. The lower court would determine it based on the rules
-since the CA already found the will valid and it already decreed the appointment of an albacea, a regular administrator should now be already appointed.
-appointment of a special administrator justified only when THERE IS DELAY IN GRANTING LETTERS TESTAMENTARY OR OF ADMINISTRATION OCCASIONED BY AN APPEAL FROM THE ALLOWANCE OR DISALLOWANCE OF A WILL OR SOME OTHER CAUSE
-The appointment of a regular administrator is necessary for the prompt settlement and distribution of the estate. There are important duties devolving on a regular administrator which a special administrator can not perform, and there are many actions to be taken by the court which could not be accomplished before a regular administrator is appointed.
-WHO SHOULD BE APPOINTED AS ADMINISTRATOR? While surviving spouse is entitled to preference (R79.6), circumstances might warrant his rejection and the appointment of someone else. It is proper to command the court below to appoint a regular administrator, but it is not proper to tell it whom to appoint.
D-5. Bond of Executors and Administrators
RULE 81
Section 1. Bond to be given issuance of letters. Amount. Conditions. -
Before an executor or administrator enters upon the execution of his trust,
and letters testamentary or administration issue,
he shall give a bond,
in such sum as the court directs, conditioned as follows:
(a) To make and return to the court,
within three (3) months,
a true and complete inventory of all
...goods,
...chattels,
...rights,
...credits,
...and estate of the deceased
which shall come to his possession
or knowledge
or to the possession of any other person for him;
(b) To administer
according to these rules,
and, if an executor,
according to the will of the testator,
all
...goods,
...chattels,
...rights,
...credits,
...and estate
which shall at any time come to his possession
or to the possession of any other person for him,
and from the proceeds to pay
and discharge all
...debts,
...legacies,
...and charges on the same,
...or such dividends thereon as shall be decreed by the court;
(c) To render a true and just account of his administration to the court
within one (1) years,
and at any other time
...when required by the court;
(d) To perform all orders of the court by him to be performed.
Section 2. Bond of executor where directed in will. When further bond required. -
If the testator
in his will
directs that the executors
...serve without bond,
...or with only his individual bond,
he may be allowed by the court to give bond
...in such sum
...and with such surety
as the court approves
conditioned only to pay the debts of the testator;
but the court may require of the executor a further bond
in case of
...a change in his circumstance,
...or for other sufficient case,
with the conditions named in the last preceding section.
Section 3. Bonds of joint executors and administrators. -
When two or more persons are appointed executors or administrators
the court may take
...a separate bond from each,
...or a joint bond from all.
Section 4. Bond of special administrator. -
A special administrator
before entering upon the duties of his trust
shall give a bond,
in such sum as the court directs,
conditioned that
...he will make and return a true inventory of the
...goods,
...chattels,
...rights,
...credits,
…and estate of the deceased
which come to his possession or knowledge,
...and that he will truly account for such
as are received by him
when required by the court,
….and will deliver the same
to the person appointed executor or administrator,
or to such other person as may be authorized to receive them.
LUZON SURETY V. QUEBAR
Short summary: Surety company entered into an indemnity agreements wherein they agreed to become sureties to 2 administrator's bond in favor of Pastor Quebar, and the latter agreed to pay them. Quebar submitted a project of partition and accounts which was approved by the court, so Quebar argues that the bond should now be cancelled (thus, not paying anything more to the surety). Surety sues the administrator for amounts due to it. Court held that the administrators bond still exists, coterminous with the probate proceedings. And even if there's already a project of partition, as long as not all of the debts are paid, the administrator's job is not yet done, thus, the bond still subsists and the administrator is still liable to pay the surety.
Facts:
-Luzon Surety Company entered into an indemnity agreement w/ Pastor Quebar:
Luzon Surety Company would issue 2 administrator's bond, P15k each, for 2 Special proceedings
Quebar and Kilayco would pay Luzon Surety P300 in advance as premium for every 12 months….or renewed by them
Quebar and Kilayco also agrees to indemnify Luzon Surety for all damages, losses….expenses
-Quebar paid for the first year, P304.50 each
-Quebar submitted a Project Partition and Accounts
>>>CFI approved it
-when Luzon Surety demanded payment of premiums and documentary stamps for the years after the first.
-Quebar and Kilayco filed a MOTION FOR CANCELLATION AND/OR REDUCTION OF EXECUTOR'S BOND: heirs already received their shares (so tapos na dapat trabaho nila, di na kelangan ng bond)
>>>CFI: cancelled bonds. - As a result, Kilayco and Quebar refused to pay the amount demanded by Luzon Surety (which amounted to almost P2.5k each ~ P5k)
-Luzon Surety filed for collection.
CFI: allowed Luzon Surety to recover: defendants liable under terms of the Indemnity Agreements, even if they did not renew it, because they were still in force and effect until cancelled by Court order. - Quebar and Kilayco appealed
CA: referred case to SC, questions of law involved
HELD: With the payment of the premium for the first year, the surety already assumed the risk involved, that is, in case defendant-appellant Pastor T. Quebrar defaults in his administrative duties. The surety became liable under the bond for the faithful administration of the estate by the administrator/executor. Hence, for as long as defendant-appellant Pastor T. Quebrar was administrator of the estates, the bond was held liable and inevitably, the plaintiff-appellee's liability subsists since the liability of the sureties is co-extensive with that of the administrator
HOW TO INTERPRET LIABILITY FOR THE BOND: Look on the language of the bond itself
-HERE: the bond is practically the same as R81.1, ROC
-The statute which requires the giving of a bond becomes a part of the bond and imparts into the bond any condition prescribed by statute
-PURPOSE OF BOND: indemnify creditors, heirs, legatees and the estate, conditioned upon the faithful performance of the administrator's trust
- the surety is then liable under the administrator's bond, for as long as the administrator has duties to do as such administrator/executor. Since the liability of the sureties is co-extensive with that of the administrator and embraces the performance of every duty he is called upon to perform in the course of administration (Deobold vs. Oppermann, 111 NY 531, 19 NE 94), it follows that the administrator is still duty bound to respect the indemnity agreements entered into by him in consideration of the suretyship.
-EFFECT OF APROVAL OF PROJECT OF PARTITION: NONE
...liquidation: the determination of all the assets of the estate and payment of all the debts and expenses - here, not all expenses were paid yet
…project partition: estate may be partitioned even before the termination of the administration proceedings. Even w/ the approval of the partition, the CFI could still exercise jurisidction over the administration proceedings
WHEN SURETY LIABLE: as long as probate proceedings are ongoing
The sureties of an administration bond are liable only as a rule, for matters occurring during the term covered by the bond. And the term of a bond does not usually expire until the administration has been closed and terminated in the manner directed by law
-As long as the probate court retains jurisdiction of the estate, the bond contemplates a continuing liability (Deobold vs. Oppermann, supra) notwithstanding the non-renewal of the bond by the defendants-appellants.
CAN'T INTERPRET THE TWO BONDS SEPARATELY: the terms of the bond makes them jointly and severally liable
-so 1 can't claim that the bond and the indemnity agreement failed to have effect since…
…approval of the project partition
…nonpayment of stated premiums
WON PAYMENT OF PREMIUMS AND DST ARE CONDITION PRECEDENT TO EFFECTIVITY OF BONDS? NO
-no provision or condition in the bond to the effect that it will terminate at the end of the first year if the premium for continuation thereafter is not paid. And there is no clause by which its obligation is avoided or even suspended by the failure of the obligee to pay an annual premium
-Even on a failure to pay an annual premium, the contract ran on until affirmative action was taken to avoid it. The obligation of the bond was therefore continuous
-The payment of the annual premium is to be enforced as part of the consideration, and not as a condition
-"the one-year period mentioned therein refers not to the duration or lifetime of the bond, but merely to the payment of premiums, and, consequently, does not affect at all the effectivity or efficacy of such bond. But such non-payment alone of the premiums for the succeeding years . . . does not necessarily extinguish or terminate the effectivity of the counter-bond in the absence of an express stipulation in the contract making such non-payment of premiums a cause for the extinguishment or termination of the undertaking. . . . There is no necessity for an extension or renewal of the agreement because by specific provision thereof, the duration of the counter-bond was made dependent upon the existence of the original bond."
CORPORATE SURETY: Suretyship became regarded as insurance
-no need to interpret the contract because NO AMBIGUITY
RODRIGUEZ V. SILVA
Short summary: The intestate estate of the decedent sues one of the former administrator for allegedly excessive compensation for his services and for allegedly invalidly having the administrator's bond cancelled when he had a liability during his service as administrator. As to the allegedly excessive compensation, Court held that it is w/n the discretion of the court to raise the compensation if the estate is big and there's difficulty in managing it, and it was shown that the efforts exerted by the administrator was commensurate to the compensation given. As to the bond, it was held that if ever he was liable for misappropriating a land allegedly of the estate, the bond would not cover it but it would instead be a personal liability of the administrator.
Facts:
-Pablo M. Silva, together with Victorio Rodriguez, were appointed as administrators of the intestate estate of HONOFRE LEYSON.
-through Silva's initiative:
The holdings of the estate was earning P1,300 from P900 a month
The 2 parcels of land located in Rizal were paid for in full, corresponding certificates of title secured
He was instrumental in gathering decedent's personal effects
He filed a motion whereby Margarita Leyson Laurente (one of the appellants) was NOT authorized to w/draw advance payment of her share of the inheritance, thereby able to stop an improvident disbursement of a substantial amount w/o having to employ legal help at an additional expense
-Silva filed a motion to resign.
COURT:
Cancelled his bond
Authorized him to collect P600 (note: this was 1952) as administrator's fees
-Appellants contested the order:
A few months before the order granting the resignation of Silva, he was able to cancel TCT of Cubao property in the name of the decedent in his name, in a doubtful manner
The P600 charge to the estate is unreasonable, and granting that it is reasonable, it should be apportioned between the 2 administrators, and the P100 already received by Silva should be deducted
WON COURT MAY FIX AN ADMINISTRATOR'S FEE IN EXCESS OF THE FEES PRESCRIBED IN R86.7:
SEC. 7. What expenses and fees allowed executor or administrator. Not to charge for services as attorney. Compensation provided by will controls unless renounced. An executor or administrator shall be allowed the necessary expenses in the care, management, and settlement of the estate, and for his services, four pesos per day for the time actually and necessarily employed, or a commission upon the value of so much of the estate as comes into his possession and is finally disposed of by him in the payment of debts, expenses, legacies, or distributive shares, or by delivery to heirs or devises, of two per centum of the first five thousand pesos of such value, one per centum of so much of such value as exceeds five thousand pesos and does not exceed thirty thousand pesos, one-half per centum of so much of such value as exceeds thirty thousand pesos and does not exceed one hundred thousand pesos, and one-quarter per centum of so much of such value as exceeds one hundred thousand pesos. But in any special case, where the estate is large, and the settlement has been attended with great difficulty, and has required a high degree of capacity on the part of the executor or administrator, a greater sum may be allowed. If objection to the fees allowed be taken, the allowance may be reexamined on appeal.
If there are two or more executors or administrators, the compensation shall be apportioned among them by the court according to the services actually rendered by them respectively.
When the executor or administrator is an attorney he shall not charge against the estate any professional fees for legal services rendered by him.
When the deceased by will makes some other provision for the compensation of his executor, that provision shall be a full satisfaction for his services unless by a written instrument filed in the court he renounces all claim to the compensation provided by the will
-Court can grant greater sum:
*In special cases
…where estate is large
…and settlement attended w/ great difficulty
…and has required a high degree of capacity on part of executor
-it is largely in the discretion of the probate court
HERE:
Appraised value of the estate is P22,116.46
The efforts of Silva mentioned in the facts merit his work
*On the basis of the services thus specified, coupled with the fact that the appellee worked as co-administrator for about two years, we do not think that the probate court committed an abuse of discretion in granting him P600.00 or P700.00 as fee independent of the fee that might be allowed the other administrator.
WON CANCELLATION OF THE BOND WAS PROPER?
Appellants argue that De Silva was guilty of misappropriation/ acts of commission or ommission for which bond could be held liable
NO.
The alleged illegal transfer was argued by De Silva as being sold to him even before he was administrator of the estate - it was in his possession before he became administrator
…land did not come to his hands pursuance or in the course of administration
…it was not included in the inventory prepared by De Silva
If ever he had no valid title, are not chargeable for it on the bond. De Silva's liability is personal and exclusive of the sureties who are the parties mostly affected by the third assignment of error.
D-6. Revocation of Administration, Death, Resignation, and Removal of Executors or Administrators
RULE 82
Section 1. Administration revoked if will discovered. Proceedings thereupon. -
If after letters of administration have been granted on the estate of a decedent
as if he had died intestate,
his will is proved
and allowed by the court,
the letters of administration shall be revoked
and all powers thereunder cease,
and the administrator shall forthwith
...surrender the letters to the court,
…and render his account with such time as the court directs.
Proceeding for the issuance of letters testamentary
or of administration under the will
shall be as hereinbefore provided.
Section 2. Court may be remove or accept resignation of executor or administrator. Proceeding upon death, resignation, or removal. -
If an executor or administrator
...neglects to render his account
...and settle the estate according to law,
...or to perform an
order
or judgment of the court,
or a duty expressly provided by these rules,
...or absconds,
...or becomes insane,
...or otherwise incapable or insuitable to discharge the trust,
the court may remove him,
or in its discretion, may permit him to resign.
When an executor or administrator
...dies,
...resign,
...or is removed
the remaining executor or administrator may administer the trust alone,
unless the court grants letters to someone to act with him.
If there is no remaining executor or administrator,
administration may be to any suitable person.
Section 3. Acts before revocation, resignation, or removal to be valid. -
The lawful acts of an executor or administrator
before the revocation
...of his letters testamentary or
...of administration,
or before his resignation
or removal,
shall have the like validity
as if there had been no such
...revocation,
...resignation,
...or removal.
Section 4. Powers of new executor or administrator. Renewal of license to sell real estate. -
The person to whom letters testamentary or of administration are granted
after the revocation of former letters,
or the death,
resignation,
or removal of a former executor or administrator,
shall have the like powers
...to collect
...and settle
the estate not administered
that the former executor or administrator had,
...and may prosecute or defend actions
commenced by or against the former executor or administrator,
...and have execution on judgments recovered in the name of such former executor or administrator.
An authority granted by the court to the former executor or administrator
for the sale or mortgage of real estate
may be renewed in favor of such person
without further notice or hearing.
URIARTE V. CFI
Short summary: alleged natural child of the deceased filed petition for settlement of INTESTATE estate of Don Juan Uriarte y Goite in Negros Occidental Court. PNB was even appointed as special administrator, but PNB failed to qualified. MTD filed by nephew of Don Juan, alleging that while he was in Spain, the deceased made a will AND that petitioner had doubtful interest (proceeding for his recognition as a natural child not yet done). Pending this, the nephews instituted a petition for probate of the will of Don Juan in Manila. Alleged natural son opposed, contending that Negros courts already had exclusive jurisdiction of the case.But Negros court dismissed the special proceeding, and the Manila court proceeded to probate the will. Petitioner contested it. Court held that since the decedent was a non-resident, both Manila and Negros courts may be proper venues for the proceedings. But since probate proceedings enjoy priority over intestate proceedings, action by Manila court proper. Even if the venue was improper, petitioner considered to have waived the defect by laches. Lastly, the court held that if ever recognized as the natural child of the decedent, he could opt to intervene in the probate proceedings, or to have it opened if already finished.
Facts:
-Don Juan Uriarte y Goite died in Spain, left properties both in Manila and Negros
-The alleged natural son of Don Juan, VICENTE URIARTE, filed petition for settlement of INTESTATE ESTATE of Don Juan before the Negros Occidental court. Note that during that time, the proceedings for compulsory acknowledgment as the natural son of Don Juan was still pending
-PNB also was appointed as special administrator of the estate, but PNB failed to qualify
-OPPOSITION TO PETITION by HIGINIO URIARTE (nephew of Don Juan):
Don Juan left a will, executed in Spain, duly authenticated - submitted before Negros court
ViCENTE's capacity and interest are questionable
-JUAN URIARTE ZAMACONA (di ko alam how related) commenced SPECPRO for PROBATE OF LAST WILL OF DON JUAN before Manila courts + MTD in Negros Courts
Since there's a will, no need for intestate proceedings before Negros Courts
Vicente had no legal personality to sue
>>>OPPOSED by VICENTE: Negros Courts first took cognizance, it had acquired exclusive jurisdiction over the same
NEGROS COURT: DISMISS proceedings before it
-VICENTE filed OMNIBUS MOTION in Manila Court for leave to intervene + dismissal of petition for probate + annulment of proceedings - DENIED
-Manila court admitted to probate the last will
WON NEGROS COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE INTESTATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT? NO.
Decedent is an inhabitant of a foreign country (Spain) during the time of his death, so the courts in the province s where he left property may take cognizance of settlement of his estate
-here, decedent left properties both in Manila and in Negros
Even if Negros court first took cognizance of the case, still has to give way to Manila court
special proceeding intended to effect the distribution of the estate of a deceased person, whether in accordance with the law on intestate succession or in accordance with his will, is a "probate matter" or a proceeding for the settlement of his estate.
BUT testate proceedings, for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person take precedence over intestate proceedings for the same purpose.
So even pending Intestate proceedings, if it is found it hat the decedent had left a last will, proceedings for the probate of the latter should replace the intestate proceedings even if at that stage an administrator had already been appointed, the latter being required to render final account and turn over the estate in his possession to the executor subsequently appointed.
If will rejected or disproved, proceedings shall continue as intestacy
VICENTE already waived procedural defect of VENUE IMPROPERLY LAID
-He knew that there was a will when a MTD was filed in Negros court, so he should have filed a MTD in Manila court earlier: Manila court already
*appointed an administrator
*admitted the will to probate more than 5 months earlier
-court would not annul proceedings regularly had in a lower court even if the latter was not the proper venue therefor, if the net result would be to have the same proceedings repeated in some other court of similar jurisdiction
As to interest of Vicente in the case
-two alternatives for an acknowledged natural child to prove his status and interest in the estate of the deceased parent:
(1) to intervene in the probate proceeding if it is still open; and
(2) to ask for its reopening if it has already been closed.
ROBERTS V. LEONIDAS
Short summary: Intestate proceedings already commenced and was about to be closed (there already been a project of partition) when testate proceedings initiated. The decedent left 2 wills which the petitioners for the intestate proceedings knew. Court held that probate proceedings are proper and intestate proceedings should be consolidated with the testate proceedings.
Facts:
-Edward Grimm died in Makati Med
-Heirs
1st marriage (ended in divorce) children:
Juanita Grimm Morris
Ethel Grimm Roberts (McFadden)
2nd marriage
2nd wife MAXINE
Son Edward Miller Grimm II (Pete)
Daughter Linda Grimm
-he left 2 wills: 1 for his properties in RP (conjugal property w/ 2nd wife), the other for his estate outside RP wherein the daughters in the 1st marriage were intentionally not given anything
-43 days after decedent's death, ETHEL filed Intestate proceedings, was named special administrator
>>>Maxine (2nd wife/stepmom) filed OPPOSITION + MTD:
there's Utah proceedings for the probate of will
Prayed that she be appointed special administratrix
>>>w/drawn by Maxine
INTESTATE COURT: since the parties wanted it, Maxine, Pete and Ethel were all appointed as joint administrators (Intestate court already knew there was a will but did not do anything about it)
-Administrators submitted an inventory
-Palawan Pearl Project (business owned by deceased) sold to Makiling Management Co (owned by Ethel and husband and lawyer), acquiesced by Linda (daughter in 2nd marriage) and Juanita (other daughter in 1st marriage)
-PROJECT PARTITION APPROVED BY INTESTATE COURT
-Ethel filed MOTION for accounting so that Estate properties can be partitioned among heirs and intestate estate be closed.
TESTATE COURT: filed 2 years after intestate proceedings
-sought to set aside the 1979 partition approved by intestate court
-Ethel filed MTD - denied for lack of merit
WON THE TESTATE COURT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR PROBATE? NO
-A testate proceeding is proper in this case because Grimm died with two wills and "no will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is proved and allowed" (Art. 838, Civil Code; sec. 1, Rule 75, Rules of Court).
-The probate of the will is mandatory. It is anomalous that the estate of a person who died testate should be settled in an intestate proceeding. Therefore, the intestate case should be consolidated with the testate proceeding and the judge assigned to the testate proceeding should continue hearing the two cases.
-so dismissed Ethel's petition for certiorari
ADVINCULA V. TEODORO (1956)
Short summary: brothers of the deceased wanted to oust surviving spouse/brother in law as administrator of their sister's estate, after ss/bil already appointed as such and after intestate proceedings already commenced, by showing will allegedly appointing one of them as executor. Court held that until the will is probated, the provision in the will making one of them the executor of the estate is not effective.
Facts
-Josefa Lacson Advincula allegedly died intestate and so her husband Emilio initiated specpro for the settlement of her intestate estate and was appointed regular administrator.
-After such, brothers of deceased submitted an alleged will of Josefa and petitioned for the probate of the said will
>>>Emilio contested alleging that the will was a forgery. -Enrique Lacson, one of the brothers, filed motion that he be appointed administrator of the estate, he being appointed the executor in the will, and that petitioner is "incompetent, incapable and unsuitable to the discharge of the trust, he being foreign to the estate, and without changing or removing him as such would be disastrous to the estate and to the heirs named in the will of the decedent"
>>>Lawyers of Emilio filed OPPOSITION to the motion, but on the date of hearing:
the main counsel of Emilio was not present, the motion for postponement of the hearing was denied
Enrique Lacson was appointed as administrator, they're allegations as to competence of Emilio "well-founded"
WON THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED BY EMILIO FOR GADALEJ SHOULD BE GRANTED? YES
-Although Enrique was appointed in the alleged will as executor, it is not sufficient ground to annul Emilio's appointment as administrator as the provision in the will cannot be enforced until the said document has been allowed probate [R79.4: "When a will has been proved and allowed, the court shall issue letters testamentary thereon to the person named as executor therein, if he is competent, accepts the trusts, and gives bond as required by these rules."]
-the discovery of a document purporting to be the last will and testament of a deceased, after the appointment of an administrator of the estate of the latter, upon the assumption that he or she had died intestate, does not ipso facto nullify the letters of administration already issued or even authorize the revocation thereof, until the alleged will has been "proved and allowed by the court."
R83.1: "If after letters of administration have been granted on the estate of a decedent as if he had died intestate, his will is proved and allowed by the court, the letters of administration shall be revoked and all powers thereunder cease, and the administrator shall forthwith surrender the letters to the court, end render his account within such time as the court directs. Proceedings for the issuance of letters testamentary or of administration under the will shall be as hereinbefore provided."
-ON ALLEGATION IN THE MOTION OF ENRIQUE LACSON: It is untenable from the viewpoint of logic and experience, because a stranger to deceased may be competent, capable and fit to administer her estate, in much the same as a member of her immediate family could be incompetent, incapable and unfit to do so.
…he is prima facie entitled to one-half of all property subject to the authority of the administrator of said estate, apart from his share of the other half thereof, as heir of the deceased, for "all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership" - of which he is its administrator (Article 165, Civil Code of the Philippines) - "unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife" (See Articles 160 and 185, Civil Code of the Philippines)
...Advincula has not been found guilty of any specific act or omission constituting one of the legal grounds, enumerated in Rule 83, section 2, of the Rules of Court, for the removal of an executor or administrator.
VIUDA DE BACALING V. LAGUDA
Short summary: The lessees of the land were sought to be evicted but since they put up a residential house on the property, they refused to do so. The lessee, who was also the judicial administratrix of her husband co-lesee, entered into an amicable settlement w/ the owner of the property wherein she agreed to leave the property. She was however replaced as judicial administratrix so she now claims that the amicable settlement cannot be enforced against her. Court held that her acts bound the next administrator of the estate, thus, they should leave the property.
Facts:
-Hector Laguda owned a residential lot in La Paz, Iloilo
-He allowed Dr. Ramon Bacaling and her wife Nelita to build a residential house on a portion of the lot, upon payment of monthly rentals
-since the spouses were unable to pay the rentals, an action for ejectment was filed against Nelita (Dr. Ramon already died) as the judicial administratrix of the estate of her husband
-suffering many legal setbacks and unable to have the action for ejectment dismissed, she entered (as the judicial administratrix) an compromise agreement w/ Hector where she agreed to pay the accrued rents and vacate the premises and demolish the house.
-Compromise agreement approved by the courts
-Nelia refused to comply with the agreement
-Hector moved for execution of the compromise agreement
-pending this, Nelia was discharged as the judicial administrator of her husband's estate so she was claiming in a motion to quash that the settlement was not binding on the new administrator - denied
-Alias writ of execution issued by court
-to stop the demolition of the house, Nelia filed certiorari proceedings w/ TRO before SC
WON ACTS OF NELIA AS JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATRIX PRIOR TO HER DISCHARGE OR REMOVAL ARE VALID AND BINDING UPON HER SUCCESSOR? YES
-Under Section 3, Rule 82 of the Rules of Court, petitioner's lawful acts before the revocation of her letters of administration or before her removal shall have the same validity as if there was no such revocation or removal. It is elementary that the effect of revocation of letters testamentary or of administration is to terminate the authority of the executor or administrator, but the acts of the executor or administrator, done in good faith prior to the revocation of the letters, will be protected, and a similar protection will be extended to rights acquired under a previous grant of administration.
WON NELIA WAS A BUILDER IN GF? NO
-Lessees, like petitioner, are not possessors in good faith, because they knew that their occupancy of the premises continues only during the life of the lease, and they cannot as a matter of right, recover the value of their improvements from the lessor, much less retain the premises until they are reimbursed. Their rights are governed by Article 1678 of the Civil Code which allows reimbursement of lessees up to one-half of the value of their improvements if the lessor so elects.
WON THERE WAS DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF THE MINOR CHILDREN OF THE DECEASED OF THE MOTION FOR EXECUTION? NO
-there was evidence that the guardian ad litem has been duly apprised, as shown by the certification of the counsel for Nelia at the foot of her opposition to the motion for execution
No comments:
Post a Comment