THE ESTATE OF HILARIO M. RUIZ, EDMOND RUIZ, Executor, petitioner, vs.

THE COURT OF
APPEALS (Former Special Sixth Division), MARIA PILAR RUIZ-MONTES, MARIA CATHRYN RUIZ,
CANDICE ALBERTINE RUIZ, MARIA ANGELINE RUIZ and THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG, respondents.
G.R. No. 118671, SECOND DIVISION, January 29, 1996, PUNO, J.

Facts:
Hilario Ruiz executed a holographic and named as heirs his only son Edmond, Maria Pilar Ruiz
Montes his adopted daughter, and his three granddaughters (all daughters of Edmond), and
named Edmond as executor of his estate. Upon the death of Hilario, the cash component of his
estate was immediately distributed to his heirs. Four years hence and Edmond has not taken
any action for the probate of the will. Hence, Pilar filed before the RTC a petition for the
probate and approval of Hilario’s will, and for the issuance of letters testamentary to Edmond.
The latter opposed the petition on the ground that the will was executed under undue
influence.

It was later discovered that the house and lot in Valle Verde which Hilario bequeathed to his
three granddaughters were leased out by Edmond to third persons. The probate court ordered
Edmond to deposit with the Branch Clerk of Court the rental deposit and payments totaling
P540,000.00. He moved for the release of P50,000.00 to pay the real estate taxes on the real
properties but the court approved only P7,722.

Upon Edmund’s withdrawal of his opposition to the probate, the court ordered the issuance of
letters testamentary upon the filing of the bond amounting to P50,000.00. Edmond, as
executor, filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Release of Funds, which the court approved but only
“such amount as may be necessary to cover the expenses of administration and allowances for
support” of the three granddaughters. The amounts released were subject to collation and
deductible from the three granddaughters’ share in the inheritance. It also ordered the release
of the titles to the Valle Verde property and Blue Ridge apartments to certain heirs six months
after the date of first publication of notice to creditors. Edmond opposed the same and said
that the court erred in disallowing him as the executor to take possession of all the real and
personal properties of the estate, in granting support to persons not entitled, and in
distributing the titles to some of the heirs.

ISSUES

1. Whether the probate court has the authority to grant an allowance from the funds of
the estate for the support of the testator's grandchildren.
2. Whether the probate court should order the release of the titles to certain heirs.
3. Whether the probate court should grant possession of all properties of the estate to the
executor of the will.

Held:
1. No. The court erred in granting the release of administration and allowances for support to
the grandchildren as they are not entitled to provisional support from the funds of the
decedent's estate. Section 3, Rule 86 clearly limits the allowance to "widow and children" and
does not extend it to the deceased's grandchildren, regardless of their minority or incapacity.

2. No. The distribution of the estate properties can only be made: (1) after all the debts, funeral
charges, expenses of administration, allowance to the widow, and estate tax have been paid; or
(2) before payment of said obligations only if the distributees or any of them gives a bond in a
sum fixed by the court conditioned upon the payment of said obligations within such time as
the court directs, or when provision is made to meet those obligations. (Section 90, Rules of
Court)

While Hilario did not leave any debts when he died, his estate is nevertheless required to settle
the estate tax before any distribution can be made out of the estate. If not yet paid, the rule
requires that the distributees post a bond or make such provisions as to meet the said tax
obligation. Neither of the two was done in this case.

3. No. As executor, Edmond can only take possession of all the real and personal properties
when it is necessary for the payment of the debts and expenses for administration. His right of
ownership over the properties of his father is merely inchoate as long as the estate has not
been fully settled and partitioned. As mere trustee of his father's estate, he cannot unilaterally
assign to himself and possess all his parents' properties and the fruits thereof without first
submitting an inventory and appraisal of all real and personal properties, rendering a true
account of his administration, the expenses of administration, the amount of the obligations
and estate tax, all of which are subject to a determination by the court as to their veracity,
propriety and justness.