Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LE81-85: All The Debts and Expenses. It Appears That There Were Still
LE81-85: All The Debts and Expenses. It Appears That There Were Still
RULE81-85
LUZON SURETY COMPANY, INC. vs. PASTOR T. statute creating the obligation secured and the purposes for
QUEBRAR and FRANCISCO KILAYKO January 31, 1984 which the bond is required, as expressed in the statute. The
statute which requires the giving of a bond becomes a part of
the bond and imparts into the bond any conditions prescribed
Facts:
by the statute. The bonds in question herein contain
practically the very same conditions in Sec. 1, Rule 81 of the
1. Luzon Surety Company Inc. issued two administrator's bond Rules of Court. Pertinent provision of the administrator's
in the amount of P15,000.00 each, in behalf of the defendant- bonds is as follows:
appellant Pastor T. Quebrar, as administrator in Special
Proceedings Nos. 3075 and 3076 of the Court of First
Therefore, if the said Pastor T. Quebrar faithfully prepares
Instance of Negros Occidental, entitled " Re Testate Estate of
and presents to the Court, within three months from the date
A. B. Chinsuy," and Re Testate Estate of Cresenciana Lipa,"
of his appointment, a correct inventory of all the property of
respectively.
the deceased which may have come into his possession or
2. In consideration of the suretyship wherein the plaintiff-
into the possession of any other person representing him
appellee Luzon Surety Company, Inc. was bound jointly and
according to law, if he administers all the property of the
severally with the defendant appellant Pastor T. Quebrar, the
deceased which at any time comes into his possession or into
latter, together with Francisco Kilayko, executed two
the possession of any other person representing him;
indemnity agreements, where among other things, they
faithfully pays all the debts, legacies, and bequests which
agreed jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff-appellee "the
encumber said estate, pays whatever dividends which the
sum of Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00) in advance as
Court may decide should be paid, and renders a just and true
premium thereof for every 12 months or fraction thereof, this
account of his administrations to the Court within a year or at
... or any renewal or substitution thereof is in effect" and to
any other date that he may be required so to do, and
indemnify plaintiff-appellee against any and all damages,
faithfully executes all orders and decrees of said Court, then
losses, costs, stamps taxes, penalties, charges and expenses,
in this case this obligation shall be void, otherwise it shall
whatsoever, including the 15% of the amount involved in any
remain full force and effect .
litigation, for attomey's fees.
3. For the first year, from August 9, 1954 to August 9, 1955, the
defendants-appellants paid P304.50 under each indemnity Section 1 of Rule 81 of the Rules of Court requires the
agreement or a total of P609.00 for premiums and administrator/executor to put up a bond for the
documentary stamps. purpose of indemnifying the creditors, heirs, legatees
4. On June 6, 1957, the Court of First Instance of Negros and the estate. It is conditioned upon the faithful
Occidental approved the amended Project of Partition and performance of the administrator's trust. Having in
Accounts of defendant-appellant. mind the purpose and intent of the law, the surety is
5. On May 8, 1962, the plaintiff-appellee demanded from the then liable under the administrator's bond, for as long
defendants-appellants the payment of the premiums and as the administrator has duties to do as such
documentary stamps from August 9,1955. administrator/executor. Since the liability of the
6. On October 17, 1962, the defendants-appellants ordered a sureties is co-extensive with that of the administrator
motion for cancellation and/or reduction of executor's bonds and embraces the performance of every duty he is
on the ground that "the heirs of these testate estates have called upon to perform in the course of administration
already received their respective shares". follows that the administrator is still duty bound to
7. On October 20, 1962, the Court of First Instance of Negros respect the indemnity agreements entered into by him
Occidental acting on the motions filed by the defendants- in consideration of the suretyship
appellants ordered the bonds cancelled.
8. Plaintiff-appellee's demand amounted to P2,436.00 in each
It is shown that the defendant-appellant Pastor T. Quebrar,
case, hence, a total of P4,872.00 for the period of August 9,
still had something to do as an administrator/executor even
1955 to October 20, 1962. The defendants-appellants to pay
after the approval of the amended project of partition and
the said amount of P4,872.00.
accounts on June 6, 1957.
9. On January 8, 1963, the plaintiff-appellee filed the case with
the Court of First Instance of Manila During the pre-trial the
parties presented their documentary evidences and agreed on The contention of the defendants-appellants that the
the ultimate issue - "whether or not the administrator's bonds administrator's bond ceased to be of legal force and effect
were in force and effect from and after the year that they with the approval of the project of partition and statement of
were filed and approved by the court up to 1962, when they accounts on June 6, 1957 is without merit. The defendant-
were cancelled." The defendants-appellants offered P1,800.00 appellant Pastor T. Quebrar did not cease as administrator
by way of amicable settlement which the plaintiff-appellee after June 6, 1957, for administration is for the purpose of
refused. liquidation of the estate and distribution of the residue among
10. The lower court allowed the plaintiff to recover from the the heirs and legatees. And liquidation means the
defendants-appellants. Defendants-appellants appealed to the determination of all the assets of the estate and payment of
Court of Appeals. On March 20, 1975, the Court of Appeals in all the debts and expenses. It appears that there were still
a resolution certified the herein case to this Court after debts and expenses to be paid after June 6, 1957.
finding that this case involves only errors or questions of law.
The sureties of an administration bond are liable only as a
Issue: Whether or not Quberar et al are still liable to rule, for matters occurring during the term covered by the
pay plaintiff under the bond for the years after the bond. And the term of a bond does not usually expire until
project of partition has been approved. YES. the administration has been closed and terminated in the
manner directed by law Thus, as long as the probate court
retains jurisdiction of the estate, the bond contemplates a
Held: The proper determination of the liability of the surety
continuing liability notwithstanding the non-renewal of the
and of the principal on the bond must depend primarily upon
bond by the defendants-appellants.
the language of the bond itself. The bonds herein were
required by Section 1 of Rule 81 of the Rules of Court. While
a bond is nonetheless a contract because it is required by It must be remembered that the probate court possesses an
statute, said statutory bonds are construed in the light of the all-embracing power over the administrator's bond and over
SPECPRO.RULE81-85
the administration proceedings and it cannot be devoid of 11. CA – Fabiana filed an action for certiorari and
legal authority to execute and make that bond answerable for injuction alleging that a)the probate court had no
the every purpose for which it was filed.. It is the duty of the jurisdiction to resolve the issue of ownership; b) the
courts of probate jurisdiction to guard jealously the estate of title of Garen heirs is a stronger claim that rebuts the
the deceased persons by intervening in the administration presumption that the estate owns the fishpond; and
thereof in order to remedy or repair any injury that may be c) a separate action has to be filed.
done.
Issue: WON the probate court had jurisdiction to resolve the
issue of title covering fishpond.
Conflicting claims over a fishpond asserted by the 1. Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court),
administrators of the estate of deceased spouses, on the one acting as a Probate Court, exercises but limited
hand, and by the heirs of a daughter of said spouses and their jurisdiction, and thus has no power to take
lessee, on the other, have given rise to the proceedings. cognizance of and determine the issue of title to
property claimed by a third person adversely to the
decedent, unless the claimant and all the Other
Facts:
parties having legal interest in the property consent,
expressly or impliedly, to the submission of the
1. Eumelia Cabado and Pompiro Valera had been question to the Probate Court for adjudgment, or the
appointed administrators in the intestate estate of interests of third persons are not thereby prejudiced.
Spouses Rafael Valera and Consolacion Sarrosa.
2. Teresa Garin, grandchild from the deceased
The reason for the exception being that the question
daughter, filed a motion asking that the
of whether or not a particular matter should be
Administratrix, Cabado, be declared in contempt for
resolved by the Court in the exercise of its general
her failure to render an accounting of her
jurisdiction or of its limited jurisdiction as a special
administration.
court is in reality not a jurisdictional but in essence
3. Cabado replied that no accounting could be
of procedural one, involving a mode of practice which
submitted unless Jose Garin, Teresa's husband and
may be waived.
the movant heirs' father, delivered to the
administrator an 18-hectare fishpond in Baras,
Barotoc Nuevo, Iloilo, belonging to the estate and The facts obtaining in this case, however, do not call for the
she in turn moved for the return thereof to the application of the exception to the rule. As already earlier
estate, so that it might be partitioned among the stressed, it was at all times clear to the Court as well as to
decedents' heirs. the parties that if cognizance was being taken of the question
4. Jose Garin opposed the plea for the fishpond's return of title over the fishpond, it was not for the purpose of
to the estate, asserting that the property was owned settling the issue definitely and permanently, and writing
by his children and this was why it had never been "finis" thereto, the question being explicitly left for
included in any inventory of the estate. determination "in an ordinary civil action," but merely to
5. Lower court viewed the Garin Heirs' motion for determine whether it should or should not be included in the
contempt, as well as Cabado's prayer for the inventory. 31 This function of resolving whether or not
fishpond's return to the estate, as having given rise property should be included in the estate inventory is, to be
to a claim for the recovery of an asset of the estate sure, one clearly within the Probate Court's competence,
within the purview of Section 6, Rule 87 of the Rules although the Court's determination is only provisional in
of Court. character, not conclusive, and is subject to the final decision
6. Court issued an Order commanding the Heirs of in a separate action that may be instituted by the parties.
Teresa Garin "to reconvey immediately the fishpond
in question * * to the intestate Estate of the Spouses 2.
Since the determination by the Probate Court of the
and it found that an implied trust had been created
question of title to the fishpond was merely
in accordance with Art 1453 & 1455 of CC. (The
provisional, not binding on the property with any
fishpond original belonged to the govt and been
character of authority, definiteness or permanence,
leased to Rafael who in turn sold his leasehold rights
having been made only for purposes of in. conclusion
to his daughter Teresa, but the sale was fictitious,
in the inventory and upon evidence adduced at the
because it was resorted merely to support the
hearing of a motion, it cannot and should not be
schooling of the children of Teresa and to return
subject of execution, as against its possessor who
after the children finish schooling.)
has set up title in himself (or in another) adversely
7. The fishpond was leased by Garin Heirs to Fabiana,
to the decedent, and whose right to possess has not
who although willingly surrendered it to the sheriff,
been ventilated and adjudicated in an appropriate
later filed a complaint-in-intervention. This
action. These considerations assume greater cogency
was dismissed for the lease contract had not been
where, as here, the Torrens title to the property is
registered, hence not binding, so he instituted a
not in the decedents' names but in others, a
separate action for injunction and damages.
situation on which this Court has already had
8. Court issued TRO enjoining administrators from
occasion to rule.
disturbing Fabiana in the possession of the fishpond.
9. Administrators filed a MTD averring that the action
was barred by the probate court’s prior judgement.
10. SC – special civil action for certiorari and mandamus
contending that CFI of Iloilo had no right to interfere August 30, 1982 IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE
with the probate court in the legitimate exercise of ESTATE OF THE LATE JULIANA REYES, PAULINA
its jurisdiction in the settlement of the estate. SANTOS DE PARREÑO, special administratrix, v.
GREGORIA ARANZANSO, Appellant.
SPECPRO.RULE81-85
But the opposition was persistent; it refused to give in.
SYNOPSIS And so on June 20, 1966, the court which incidentally
Juliana Reyes died intestate. Her surviving spouse, Simplicio was presided by a different judge issued an order
Santos, filed in the CFI of Manila a petition for the settlement granting the omnibus motion filed by Paulina Santos de
of her estate and asked for his appointment as administrator Parreno.
thereof. Despite opposition from Gregoria Aranzanso. a first ("In view of the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court
cousin of the deceased, who asserted that Simplicio’s rendered on February 28, 1966 in S.C. G.R. No. L-23828,
marriage to the deceased was bigamous and void and that `Paulina Santos and Aurora Santos v. Gregoria
the adoption of the two children, Paulina and Aurora was Aranzanso, et al’, which decision declared that the
likewise void at ab initio for want of the written consent of oppositors Gregoria Aranzanso, Demetria Ventura,
their parents who were then living and had not abandoned Consuelo Pasion and Pacita Pasion are without right to
them, Simplicio Santos was appointed as special intervene as heirs in the settlement of the estate in
administrator of the estate and acted as such until his death question and that said oppositors were enjoined
on July 1, 1962. permanently from withdrawing any sum from the estate
in the concept of the heirs and from intervening in this
The following month, Araceli Pilapil, Paulina Santos’ attorney- proceeding, and which judgment of the Supreme Court
in-fact, was appointed as special administratrix. In 1965, she has already become final and executory, the oppositors
filed a motion for her appointment as the regular aforementioned, more specially the administratrix
administratrix. Oppositors proposed the appointment of Gregoria Aranzanso, have lost their right to intervene in
Gregoria Aranzanso as such, she being the nearest surviving this case and the latter to perform any act of
relative of the decedent who died without issue. Hearings administration in the present proceeding. As a matter of
were held with the parties presenting their respective fact, if we have to construe strictly the mandate of the
evidence to support their contentions until the court issued its aforementioned judgment of the appellate Court, it would
order appointing Gregoria Aranzanso as the regular seem that the oppositors never had any right at all to
administrator, as the movants were found to have adverse intervene in this case. Such being the case, the Court
interests against the intestate estate. Motions for after weighing carefully the circumstances surrounding
reconsideration proved futile. On June 20,1966 however, the this case, has arrived at the conclusion that the
probate court, presided by a different judge, issued an order aforementioned decision of the appellate Court has
revoking Gregoria Aranzanso’s appointment and in her stead stripped off the oppositors of any semblance of
declared petitioner Paulina Santos de Parreno as the special personality which they may have acquired in this instant
administratrix of her late mother’s intestate estate following proceeding.)
the ruling in a related case, G.R. No. L-23828, where the
Supreme Court declared Gregoria Aranzanso and others Finding the omnibus motion filed by Paulina R. Santos de
without right to intervene as heirs in the settlement of the Parreño on May 26, 1966 to be well-taken, the same is
estate in question. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that hereby granted.
the probate court was not justified in revoking the
appointment of Gregoria Aranzanso as she could only be "The oppositors Gregorio Aranzanso, Demetria Ventura,
removed for a cause or causes provided by law. Her removal Consuelo Pasion and Pacita Pasion are declared to be without
on the ground that she is without right to intervene as heir in any right to intervene in this intestate proceeding and,
the settlement of the estate in question is not one of the henceforth, they should not be allowed to take part therein.
grounds provided by Rule 82 of the Rules of Court. Her
intervention in the settlement proceedings is not in the "GREGORIA ARANZANSO and Demetria Ventura are ordered
capacity of heir although she might be one if her direct attack to return to the estate the sum of P14,000.00 which they
on the adoption of the two girls should succeed. received by virtue of the order of this Court dated October 2,
1965.
The order removing Gregoria Aranzanso as administrator was
set aside. "The appointment of Gregoria Aranzanso as regular
administratrix pursuant to the order of this Court dated
January 29, 1966 is revoked and she is ordered to render a
FACTS: Juliana Reyes died intestate. Her substantial estate is final account of her administration within ten (10) days from
still being settled in Special Proceedings No. 34354 of the receipt hereof.
Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch IV. The settlement
has spawned a number of litigation which has reached this "Paulina R. Santos de Parreño is appointed special
Court and includes not only the instant case but also other administratrix of the intestate estate of the late Juliana Reyes
cases with the following docket numbers: 23828, 26940 and de Santos and upon her filing a bond in the amount of
27130. P2,000.00 and the corresponding oath of office, letters of
special administration be issued to her.
The estate had only special administrators until Gregoria
Aranzanso who claims to be a first cousin of the decedent A motion for reconsideration of the order was denied which
asked that she be appointed regular administrator. Her prompted Gregoria Aranzanso to appeal the order.
motion provoked counter motions, oppositions, replies,
rebuttal and rejoinder which take up 120 pages of the printed ISSUE: whether or not the lower court was justified in
record on appeal and which demonstrate the zeal of the revoking the appointment of Gregoria Aranzanso as the
various counsel in espousing their clients claims to the estate administrator of the intestate estate of Juliana Reyes.
which as aforesaid is substantial.
The Court issued an order appointing Gregoria Aranzanso as It stands to reason that the appellant having been appointed
regular administrator and relieving Araceli A. Pilapil as special regular administrator of the intestate estate of Juliana Reyes
administrator. may be removed from her office but only for a cause or
causes provided by law. What is the law on removal? It is
Motions for reconsideration of the order were filed but the found in Rule 82, Section 2, of the Rules of Court which reads
presiding judge held firm "considering that most of the as follows:
movants have adverse interests against this intestate estate.
SPECPRO.RULE81-85
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; INTESTATE ESTATE PROCEEDINGS; open to collateral attack.
ADMINISTRATORS, GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL. — The law on
removal of appointed regular administrators is found in Rule Stating that, "The principal issue on the merits in this appeal
82, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court which reads as follows; "Sec. is whether respondents-oppositors Aranzanso and Ventura,
2. Court may remove or accept resignation of executor or could assail in the settlement proceedings the adoption
administrator. Proceedings upon death, resignation, or decree in favor of Paulina and Aurora Santos," this Court gave
removal. If an executor or administrator neglects to render a negative answer.
his account and settle the estate according to law, or to
perform an order or judgment of the court, or a duty Thereafter, this Court rendered judgment which insofar as
expressly provided by these rules, or absconds, or becomes relevant reads as follows:
insane, or otherwise incapable or unsuitable to discharge the
trust, the court may remove him, or, in its discretion, may "Wherefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is hereby
permit him to resign. When an executor or administrator dies, reversed and the order of the probate court a quo sustaining
resigns, or is removed the remaining executor or the adoption, dated April 6, 1959, is affirmed. Respondents
administrator may administer the trust alone, unless the court Gregoria Aranzanso and Demetria Ventura as well as
grants letters to someone to act with him. If there is no Consuelo and Pacita Pasion are declared without right to
remaining executor or administrator, administration may be intervene as heirs in the settlement of the intestate estate of
granted to any suitable person. Juliana Reyes . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library
REGULAR ADMINISTRATOR MAY BE REMOVED ONLY FOR The decision denied to Gregoria Aranzanso the right to
CAUSE. — Appellant having been appointed regular intervene in the settlement proceedings as an heir of Juliana
administrator of the intestate estate of Juliana Reyes may be Reyes. But an administrator does not have to be an heir. He
removed from her office but only for a cause or causes can be a stranger to the deceased. In fact, in one of her
provided by law. The decision of this Court, cited in the motions Paulina Santos de Parreño proposed the appointment
appealed order that she, among other persons, is without of the Philippine National Bank as special administrator.
right to intervene as heir in the settlement of the estate in (Record on Appeal, pp. 144-146.) We hold that the
question is not one of the grounds provided by the Rules of intervention of Gregoria Aranzanso in the settlement
Court. proceedings is not in the capacity of heir although she might
be one if her direct attack on the adoption of the two girls
ORDER REMOVING APPELLANT AS ADMINISTRATOR SET should succeed. We have authorized such direct attack in G.R.
ASIDE. — The decision denied to appellant the right to No. L-26940.
intervene in the settlement proceedings as an heir of Juliana
Reyes. But an administrator does not have to be an heir. He WHEREFORE, the order of June 20, 1966, removing Gregoria
can be a stranger to the deceased. Her intervention in the Aranzanso as administrator is hereby set aside and she is
settlement proceedings is not in the capacity of heir although reinstated as administrator of the intestate estate of Juliana
she might be one if her direct attack on the adoptions of the Reyes. Cost against the appellee.
two girls should succeed. The order removing appellant as
administrator is set aside and she is reinstated as
administrator of the intestate estate in question.
Let it be recalled that in G.R. No. L-23828, Paulina Santos, Et. ANA LIM KALAW, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE
Al. v. Gregoria Aranzanso, Et Al., 123 Phil. 160 (1966), a INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, THE HONORABLE
collateral attack on the adoption of the two girls was not RICARDO B. DIAZ and ROSA LIM KALAW, Respondents
allowed under the following facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw
library
When Juliana Reyes died intestate, Simplicio Santos filed in FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari, prohibition and
the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition for the mandamus with preliminary injunction to annul and set aside
settlement of her estate. In said petition he stated among the decision dated December 27, 1985 of the then
other things that the surviving heirs of the deceased are: he, Intermediate Appellate Court 1 affirming the decision of the
as surviving spouse, Paulina Santos and Aurora Santos, 27 Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27 in Special
and 17 years of age, respectively. In the same petition, he Proceeding No. 84520 removing petitioner Ana Lim Kalaw as
asked that he be appointed administrator of the estate. administratrix and appointing private respondent Rosa Lim
Kalaw in her stead as the administratrix of the estate of their
Gregoria Aranzanso, alleging that she is first cousin to the late father Carlos Lim Kalaw.
deceased, filed an opposition to the petition for appointment
of administrator. For her grounds she asserted that Simplicio It appears on record that Carlos Lim Kalaw died intestate,
Santos’ marriage to the late Juliana Reyes was bigamous and Victoria Lim Kalaw filed an amended petition for the issuance
thus void; and that the adoption of Paulina Santos and Aurora of Letters of Administration with the then Court of First
Santos was likewise void ab initio for want of the written Instance of Manila in Special Proceeding No. 84520 naming
consent of their parents who were then living and had not Ana Lim Kalaw (63 years old), Victoria Lim Kalaw (57 years
abandoned them. old), Pura Lim Kalaw (53 years old) and Rosa Lim Kalaw (43
years old) as the surviving heirs of the late Carlos Lim Kalaw.
The Court of First Instance decided the point in dispute, ruling
that the validity of the adoption in question could not be TC issued an order appointing petitioner Ana Lim Kalaw as
assailed collaterally in the intestate proceedings (Sp. Proc. special administratrix. Consequently, petitioner filed a
NO. 34354). The order was appealed to the Court of Appeals. preliminary inventory of all the properties which came into
her possession as special administratrix of the estate of her
The Court of Appeals reversed the appealed order, finding late father.
instead that the adoption was null and void ab initio due to
the absence of consent thereto by the natural parents of the The trial court issued another order appointing petitioner as
minor children, which it deemed a jurisdictional defect still the judicial administratrix of said estate and a Letter of
SPECPRO.RULE81-85
Administration was issued to the petitioner after the latter removal of an executor or administrator unless positive error
took her oath of office. or gross abuse of discretion is shown. (Borromeo v.
Borromeo, 97 Phil. 549; Matute v. Court of Appeals, 26 SCRA
Thereafter, Jose Lim filed a motion to require petitioner to 768.) In the case at bar, the removal of petitioner as
render an accounting of her administration of said estate administratrix was on the ground of her failure for 6 years
which was granted by respondent Judge Ricardo Diaz. and 3 months from the time she was appointed as
administratrix to render an accounting of her administration
as required by Section 8 of Rule 85 of the Rules of Court."
RES. judge issued another order requiring petitioner to
render an accounting of her administration with the express SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; ACCOUNTABILITY OF
instruction that said order be personally served upon the ADMINISTRATOR, WHEN TO RENDER ACCOUNTS; RULE AND
petitioner since the order dated December 8, 1982 was EXCEPTION. — The rendering of an accounting by an
returned to the Court unserved. However, said order was also administrator of his administration within one year from his
not received by the petitioner. appointment is mandatory, as shown by the use of the word
"shall" in said rule. The only exception is when the Court
PR Rosa Lim Kalaw together with her sisters Victoria and Pura otherwise directs because of extensions of time for presenting
Lim Kalaw filed a motion to remove petitioner as claims against the estate or for paying the debts or disposing
administratrix of their father’s estate and to appoint instead the assets of the estate, which do not exist in the case at bar.
private respondent on the ground of negligence on the part of
petitioner in her duties for failing to render an accounting of
her administration since her appointment as administratrix "Petitioner’s contention that her removal was without due
more than six years ago in violation of Section 8 of Rule 85 of process is certainly not borne out by the records. There has
the Revised Rules of Court. been a hearing and, in fact, several pleadings had been filed
by the parties on the issue before the order of removal was
Respondent judge issued another order requiring petitioner to issued. Thus, the motion to remove petitioner as
render an accounting within 30 days from receipt thereof. She administratrix was filed on January 3, 1984, which motion
likewise filed on the same date, her Opposition to the motion was set for hearing on February 10, 1984. Petitioner filed an
praying for her removal as administratrix alleging that the opposition to the motion on March 22, 1984. This was
delay in rendering said accounting was due to the fact that followed by a Rejoinder and Manifestation filed on April 6,
Judge Carlos Sundiam, who was the judge where the 1984 by private Respondent. The order for petitioner’s
intestate proceeding was assigned, had then been promoted removal was issued on January 4, 1985, or after almost a
to the Court of Appeals causing said sala to be vacated for a year from the time the motion to remove her was filed. Not
considerable length of time, while newly-appointed Judge Joel satisfied with this order, petitioner filed a motion for
Tiongco died of cardiac arrest soon after his appointment to reconsideration on January 14, 1985, to which motion private
said vacancy, so much so that she did not know to whom to respondent filed an opposition on January 25, 1985. Petitioner
render an accounting report. filed a rejoinder to the opposition on February 18, 1985.
Respondent Judge issued his order denying the motion for
IAC GRANTED REMOVAL.Administratrix Ana Lim Kalaw is reconsideration on April 30, 1985. This recital of events
hereby REMOVED as such Administratrix of the Estate of the indubitably disproves petitioner’s allegation that she was not
late Carlos Lim Kalaw." afforded due process."
The facts show that petitioner had never abandoned her role
HELD: YES. The rule is that if no executor is named in the
as co-administratrix of the estate nor had she been remiss in
will, or the named executor or executors are incompetent,
the fullfilment of her duties. Suffice it to state, temporary
refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a person dies
absence in the state does not disqualify one to be an
intestate, the court must appoint an administrator of the
administrator of the estate. Thus, as held in re Mc Knight's
estate of the deceased who shall act as representative not
Will, a temporary residence outside of the state, maintained
only of the court appointing him but also of the heirs and the
for the benefit of the health of the executors' family, is not
creditors of the estate. In the exercise of its discretion, the
such a removal from the state as to necessitate his removal
probate court may appoint one, two or more co-
as executor.
administrators to have the benefit of their judgment and
perhaps at all times to have different interests represented.
Finally, it seems that the court a quo seeks refuge in the fact
that two (2) of the other three (3) heirs of the estate of the
Administrators have such an interest in the execution of their
deceased (Teresa Olbes and Cecilia Favis Gomez) have
trust as entitle them to protection from removal without just
opposed the retention or re-appointment of petitioner as co-
cause. Hence, Section 2 of Rule 82 of the Rules of Court
administratrix of the estate. Suffice it to state that the
provides the legal and specific causes authorizing the court to
removal of an administrator does not lie on the whims,
remove an administrator.
caprices and dictates of the heirs or beneficiaries of the
estate, nor on the belief of the court that it would result in
While it is conceded that the court is invested with ample orderly and efficient administration.
discretion in the removal of an administrator, it however must
have some fact legally before it in order to justify a removal.
As the appointment of petitioner Beatriz F. Gonzales was
There must be evidence of an act or omission on the part of
valid, and no satisfactory cause for her removal was shown,
the administrator not conformable to or in disregard of the
the court a quo gravely abused its discretion in removing her.
rules or the orders of the court, which it deems sufficient or
Stated differently, petitioner Beatriz F. Gonzales was removed
substantial to warrant the removal of the administrator. In
without just cause. Her removal was therefore improper.
making such a determination, the court must exercise good
judgment, guided by law and precedents.
FACTS: Catalina Bajacan died on February 3, 1977. On March The CFI gave effect to the widower's conformitt and
16, 1977, the petitioner filed a petition with the CFI of Nueva appointed its clerk or court as special administrator. When a
Ecija, Gapan, for the probate of a will alleged to have been purported lawyer for Felix Balanay, Jr. Came and filed a
executed by the deceased instituting the herein petitioner as motion for leave of court to withdraw probate of the will, the
sole and universal heir and naming him as executor; and on CFI declared the will void and converted the testate
May 10, 1977, the private respondents filed a motion to proceedings into testate proceedings into intestate
dismiss and/or opposition contending, among others, that all proceedings and ordered the issuance of notice to creditors.
the real properties of Catalina Bajacan are now owned by Felix Balanay, Jr. Asked that the lower court reconsider
them by virtue of a Deed of Donation Intervivos executed on alleging that the purported lawyer was terminated hence the
June 19, 1972 by Arcadia Bajacan and Catalina Bajacan in withdrawal of the probate was unauthorized. When this was
their favor; On September 23, 1977, a motion for the denied, the recourse was to SC.
appointment of a special administrator was filed by the
petitioner alleging that the unresolved motion to dismiss ISSUE: WON the probate court erred in passing upon the
would necessarily delay the probate of the will and the intrinsic validity of the will, before ruling on its allowance or
appointment of an executor. formal validity, and in declaring it void.
On December 23, 1977, the respondent judge issued an order HELD: NEGATIVE. SC held that in view of certain unusual
denying the motion. A subsequent MR was denied. Hence, provisions of the will, which are of dubious legality, and
this petition. because of the motion to withdraw the petition for probate
(which the lower court assumed to have been filed with the
ISSUE: WON the petition for the appointment of a special petitioner's authorization), the trial court acted correctly in
administrator shall be granted. passing upon the will's intrinsic validity even before its formal
SPECPRO.RULE81-85
validity had been established. The probate of a will might
become an idle ceremony if on its face it appears to be ISSUE: WON Villegas committed acts of misconduct in failing
intrinsically void. Where practical considerations demand that to secure the approval of the court in Special Proceedings No.
the intrinsic validity of the will be passed upon, even before it 460 to the various lease contracts executed between Felix
is probated, the court should meet the issue (Nuguid vs. Leong and respondent's family partnership.
Nuguid) But the probate court erred in declaring that the will
was void and in converting the testate proceeding into an HELD: No.
intestate proceeding notwithstanding the fact that in its order, Pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 84 of the Revised Rules
it gave effect to the surviving husband's conformity to the will of Court, a judicial executor or administrator has the
and to his renunciation of his hereditary rights which right to the possession and management of the real
presumably included his one-half share of the conjugal estate. as well as the personal estate of the deceased so
long as it is necessary for the payment of the debts
The rule is that "the invalidity of one of several dispositions and the expenses of administration. He may,
contained in a will does not result in the invalidity of the other therefore, exercise acts of administration without
dispositions; unless it is to be presumed that the testator special authority from the court having jurisdiction of
would not have made such other dispositions if the first the estate. For instance, it has long been settled that
invalid disposition had not been made" (Art. 792, Civil Code). an administrator has the power to enter into lease
Subject to the foregoing observations and the rules on contracts involving the properties of the estate even
collation, the will is intrinsically valid and the partition therein without prior judicial authority and approval.
may be given effect if it does not prejudice the creditors and Thus, considering that administrator Felix Leong was
impair the legitimes. not required under the law and prevailing
jurisprudence to seek prior authority from the
In the instant case, the preterited heir was the surviving probate court in order to validly lease real properties
spouse. His preterition did not produce intestacy. Moreover, of the estate, respondent, as counsel of Felix Leong,
he signified his conformity to his wife's will and renounced his cannot be taken to task for failing to notify the
hereditary rights. Testacy is favored. Doubts are resolved in probate court of the various lease contracts involved
favor of testacy especially where the will evinces an intention herein and to secure its judicial approval thereto.
on the part of the testator to dispose of practically his whole Even if the parties designated as lessees in the
estate. So compelling is the principle that intestacy should be assailed lease contracts were the "Heirs of Jose
avoided and that the wishes of the testator should prevail Villegas" and the partnership HIJOS DE JOSE
that sometimes the language of the will can be varied for the VILLEGAS, and respondent signed merely as an
purpose of giving it. As far as is legally possible, the agent of the latter, the Court rules that the lease
expressed desire of the testator must be followed and the contracts are covered by the prohibition against any
dispositions of the properties in his will should be upheld. acquisition or lease by a lawyer of properties
involved in litigation in which he takes part. To rule
otherwise would be to lend a stamp of judicial
approval on an arrangement which, in effect,
MAURO P. MANANQUIL vs. ATTY. CRISOSTOMO C. circumvents that which is directly prohibited by law.
VILLEGAS, August 30, 1990 For, piercing through the legal fiction of separate
juridical personality, the Court cannot ignore the
Short Summary: Disbarment case against the lawyer of the obvious implication that respondent as one of the
administrator for entering into a lease agreement with the heirs of Jose Villegas and partner, later manager of,
estate he's working for, allegedly for a minimal fee and w/o in HIJOS DE JOSE VILLEGAS stands to benefit from
court approval. Court held that no court approval is necessary the contractual relationship created between his
for the administrator to enter into a lease agreement. But client Felix Leong and his family partnership over
there are still sufficient grounds for disciplinary sanction, as properties involved in the ongoing testate
he is prohibited under the civil code to enter into any proceedings.
transaction regarding the property which he is supposed to
litigate.
The fact is that the said sum was paid by the administrator to In that event, the parties should have known, the respondent
the Penaranda Irrigation System as shown in the Official court in particular, that docket fees should have been priorly
Receipt. It was included in his accounting as part of the paid before the court could lawfully act on the case, and
farming expenses. The amount was properly allowed as a decide it.
legitimate expense of administration. It may be true that the claim for attorney's fees was but an
WHEREFORE, the lower court's order of April 29, 1968 is incident in the main case, still, it is not an escape valve from
affirmed with the modifications that the sum of (a) P1,603.11 the payment of docket fees because as in all actions, whether
as the living expenses of Librada de Guzman. (b) P100 for separate or as an offshoot of a pending proceeding, the
stenographic notes, (c) P26.25 as representation expenses, payment of docket fees is mandatory.
and (d) P268.65 as expenses for the celebration of the first Assuming, therefore, ex gratia argumenti, that Atty.
anniversary of the decedent's death are disallowed in the Serquina's demand for attorney's fees in the sum of
administrator's accounts. No costs. P68,000.00 is valid, he, Atty. Serquina, should have paid the
fees in question before the respondent court could validly try
his "motion".
II.
February 26, 1990 ALBERTO F. LACSON, EDITHA F.
LACSON, ROMEO F. LACSON and ZENA F. VELASCO It is pointed out that an attorney who is concurrently an
vs. executor of a will is barred from recovering attorney's fees
HON. LUIS R. REYES, in his capacity as presiding judge from the estate.
of Branch 22 of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, The rule is therefore clear that an administrator or executor
Branch 22, and/or Multiple Sala, Imus, Cavite, and may be allowed fees for the necessary expenses he has
EPHRAIM J. SERQUINA, incurred as such, but he may not recover attorney's fees from
Facts: Private respondent Serquina, petitioned the RTC the estate. His compensation is fixed by the rule but such a
Cavite for the probate of the last will and testament of compensation is in the nature of executor's or administrator's
Carmelita Farlin. He also petitioned the court in his capacity commissions, and never as attorney's fees. It is also left to
as counsel for the heirs, the herein petitioners, and as the sound discretion of the court.
executor under the will. With respect to attorney's fees, the rule disallows them.
The petition was not opposed and hence, the respondent Accordingly, to the extent that the trial court set aside the
court issued a "certificate of allowance. sum of P65,000.00 as and for Mr. Serquina's attorney's fees,
to operate as a "lien on the subject properties," the trial judge
Atty. Ephraim Serquina filed a "motion for attorney's fees" must be said to have gravely abused its discretion.
against the petitioners, alleging that the heirs had agreed to
pay, as and for his legal services rendered, the sum of The next question is quite obvious: Who shoulders
P68,000.00. attorney's fees? It was held that a lawyer of an
administrator or executor may not charge the estate for his
The heirs denied the claim alleging that the sum agreed upon fees, but rather, his client. Mutatis mutandis, where the
was only P7,000.00, a sum they had allegedly already paid.
SPECPRO.RULE81-85
administrator is himself the counsel for the heirs, it is the Victoria and Pura Lim Kalaw filed a motion to remove
latter who must pay therefor. petitioner as administratrix of their father’s estate and to
appoint instead private respondent on the ground of
In that connection, attorney's fees are in the nature of actual negligence on the part of petitioner for failing to render an
damages, which must be duly proved. 23 They are also accounting of her administration in violation of Section 8 of
subject to certain standards, to wit: (1) they must be Rule 85 of the Revised Rules of Court.
reasonable, that is to say, they must have a bearing on the
importance of the subject matter in controversy; (2) the Petitioner filed an Opposition to the motion alleging that the
extent of the services rendered; and (3) the professional delay in rendering said accounting was due to the fact that
standing of the lawyer. 24 In all cases, they must be Judge Sundiam, who was the judge where the intestate
addressed in a full-blown trial and not on the bare word of the proceeding was assigned, had then been promoted to the
parties. 25 And always, they are subject to the moderating Court of Appeals causing said sala to be vacated for a
hand of the courts. considerable length of time, while newly-appointed Judge
The Court is not persuaded from the facts above that Atty. Tiongco died of cardiac arrest, that she did not know to whom
Serquina is entitled to the sum claimed. The Court observes to render an accounting report.
that these are acts performed routinely since they form part
of what any lawyer worth his salt is expected to do. The will
was furthermore not contested. They are not, a case [where] RTC ruled that Ana Lim Kalaw violated the provisions of
the administrator was able to stop what appeared to be an Section 8, Rule 85 of the Rules of Court for not rendering an
improvident disbursement of a substantial amount without account of her administration within one (1) year from date of
having to employ outside legal help at an additional expense receipt of the letters of administration and this constitutes
to the estate," 27 to entitle him to a bigger compensation. He negligence on her part to perform her duty as Administratrix.
did not exactly achieve anything out of the ordinary.
CA rendered a decision directing respondent Judge to require
The records also reveal that Atty. Serquina has already been private respondent Rosa Kalaw to post the appropriate
paid the sum of P6,000.00. 28 It is our considered opinion administrator’s bond within ten (10) days from notice hereof.
that he should be entitled to P15,000.00 for his efforts on
a quantum meruit basis. Hence, we hold the heirs liable for Hence, this petition alleging grave abuse of discretion on the
P9,000.00 more. part of the appellate court in sustaining respondent Judge
Diaz’ order removing her as judicial administratrix considering
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
that she had already submitted an accounting report covering
rendered: (1) GRANTING the petition and making the
the period from December, 1977 to December, 1983 in
temporary restraining order issued on January 16, 1989
compliance with respondent’s Judge order.
PERMANENT; and (2) ORDERING the petitioners to PAY the
private respondent, Atty. Ephraim Serquina, attorney's fees in
the sum of P9,000.00. The said fees shall not be recovered
Issue: WON the removal of petitoineras administratrix of her
from the estate of Carmelita Farlin.
father's estate is justified
Ruling: Yes!
ANA LIM KALAW, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT, THE HONORABLE RICARDO B. DIAZ and ROSA 1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS;
LIM KALAW ACCOUNTABILITY OF ADMINISTRATOR, WHEN TO RENDER
ACCOUNTS; RULE AND EXCEPTION. — The rendering of an
accounting by an administrator of his administration within
Facts: Carlos Lim Kalaw died intestate on July 8, 1970. On one year from his appointment is mandatory, as shown by
1972, Victoria Lim Kalaw filed an amended petition for the the use of the word "shall" in said rule. The only exception
issuance of Letters of Administration with the CFI of Manila is when the Court otherwise directs because of extensions of
naming Ana Lim Kalaw, Victoria Lim Kalaw, Pura Lim Kalaw time for presenting claims against the estate or for paying the
and Rosa Lim Kalaw as the surviving heirs of the late Carlos debts or disposing the assets of the estate, which do not exist
Lim Kalaw. in the case at bar.
RTC issued an order appointing petitioner Ana Lim Kalaw as 2. REMOVAL OF ADMINISTRATOR; JUSTIFIED, FOR
special administratrix. Consequently, petitioner filed a NEGLIGENCE TO RENDER AN ACCOUNTING OF HIS
preliminary inventory of all the properties which came into ADMINISTRATION AS REQUIRED BY LAW. — subsequent
her possession as special administratrix of the estate of her compliance in rendering an accounting report did not purge
late father. her of her negligence in not rendering an accounting for more
than six years, which justifies petitioner’s removal as
RTC issued another order appointing petitioner as the judicial administratrix and the appointment of private respondent in
administratrix of said estate and a Letter of Administration her place as mandated by Section 2 of Rule 82 of the Rules of
was issued to petitioner. Court.
Thereafter, Jose Lim filed a motion to require petitioner to As correctly stated by the appellate court: "The settled
render an accounting of her administration of said estate rule is that the removal of an administrator under Section 2 of
which was granted by respondent Judge Diaz. es Rule 82 lies within the discretion of the Court appointing him.
law library As aptly expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of
Degala v. Ceniza and Umipig, ‘the sufficiency of any ground
Respondent judge issued another order requiring petitioner to for removal should thus be determined by said court, whose
render an accounting of her administration. However, said sensibilities are, in the first place, affected by any act or
order was also not received by the petitioner. omission on the part of the administrator not comfortable to
or in disregard of the rules or the orders of the court.’
Private respondent Rosa Lim Kalaw together with her sisters
SPECPRO.RULE81-85
Consequently, appellate tribunals are disinclined to
interfere with the action taken by a probate court in the
matter of the removal of an executor or administrator unless
positive error or gross abuse of discretion is shown.