Noob Case Digest: Ocampo vs Ocampo Case Digest G.R. No. 187879 ; J... http://noobcasedigest.blogspot.com/2019/04/ocampo-vs-ocampo-case-di...

Higit Pa Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in

Noob Case Digest

A blog that is about Philippine law s and cases. But it is mainly about Philippine Jurisprudence or cases decided by the Philippine Supreme Court.
I hope that everyone w ho reads this blog w ill f ind its content usef ul. Good luck on your journey in lif e! CAVEAT: The authors of this blog is NOT
A LAWYER but intends to be one if the universe w ills it! :D
Search

CAVEAT!!! I am not a lawyer. My understanding of the law and the cases may not be accurate. Do due diligence by reading the provisions of the law
and the full text of the cases.

Friday, April 26, 2019

Ocampo vs Ocampo Case Digest G.R. No. 187879 ; July 5,

2010
Whe re to go?

Ocampo vs Ocampo Case Digest Home

G.R. No. 187879 ; July 5, 2010 Civil Law

Commercial / Mercantile Law

PRINCIPLE/S:
Special Proceedings Criminal Law
a) Special administrator
International Law
A special administrator is an officer of the court w ho is subject to its supervision and
control, expected to w ork for the best interest of the entire estate, w ith a view to its Legal Ethics
smooth administration and speedy settlement.33 When appointed, he or she is not
Legal Forms
regarded as an agent or representative of the parties suggesting the appointment.34 The
principal object of the appointment of a temporary administrator is to preserve the estate Labor Law
until it can pass to the hands of a person fully authorized to administer it for the benefit of
Political / Constitutional Law
creditors and heirs, pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.
Remedial Law
b) Appointment of Special administrators
- Selection or removal of special administrators is not governed by the rules regarding the Taxation Law
selection or removal of regular administrator
- The probate court may appoint or remove special administrators based on grounds other

1 of 4 4/2/2020, 4:53 pm
Noob Case Digest: Ocampo vs Ocampo Case Digest G.R. No. 187879 ; J... http://noobcasedigest.blogspot.com/2019/04/ocampo-vs-ocampo-case-di...

than those enumerated in the Rules at its discretion

- Selection or removalof special administrators is at the discretion of the court as long as
the discretion is exercised w ithout grave abuse, and is based on reason, equity, justice,
and legal principles, interference by higher courts is unw arranted

c) Appointment of Special administrators is interlocutory

Reason: The appointment or removal of special administrators is discretionary.
Effect: May be assailed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court

d) Removal of Special Administrator

Even if special administrators had already been appointed, once the probate court finds the
appointees no longer entitled to its confidence, it is justified in w ithdraw ing the appointment
and giving no valid effect thereto

e) Giving of Bond is necessary to be appointed as special or regular administrator

Purpose of Filing a Bond an Administrator
1. The bond secures the performance of the duties and obligations of an administrator
provided under Section 1 of Rule 81.

2. Section 4 of Rule 81 - The bond is conditioned on the faithful execution of the

administration of the decedent’s estate requiring the special administrator to
(1) make and return a true inventory of the goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate of
the deceased w hich come to his possession or know ledge;
(2) truly account for such as received by him w hen required by the court; and
(3) deliver the same to the person appointed as executor or regular administrator, or to
such other person as may be authorized to receive them.
3. Compels the administrator, w hether regular or special, to perform the trust reposed in,
and discharge the obligations incumbent upon, him. This w oud benefit of the creditors and
the heirs.

f) Section 1 of Rule 81 - Duties and obligations of an administrator namely:

(1) to administer the estate and pay the debts;
(2) to perform all judicial orders;
Stude nts ' Pe nny Earne r Corne r
(3) to account w ithin one (1) year and at any other time w hen required by the probate
court; and Earn a bit of money on the side w hile
(4) to make an inventory w ithin three (3) months. studying. Join Yougov.

g) Sec. 1. Rule 78 of the Rules of Court – Who are incompetent to serve as executors or
To know more w ays to earn check
administrators.
my other blog: Online Money Hoarder
No person is competent to serve as executor or administrator w ho:
(a) Is a minor;
(b) Is not a resident of the Philippines; and
Vis it m y othe r blogs too!!!
(c) Is in the opinion of the court unfit to execute the duties of the trust by reason of
drunkenness, improvidence, or w ant of understanding or integrity, or by reason of
Home
conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude.
Ambot Dunno Main Page
h) Sec. 6. Rule 78 of the Rules of Court - When and to w hom letters of administration
granted. Easy Computer Guides
If no executor is named in the w ill, or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse Online Money Hoarder
the trust, or fail to give bond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall be granted:
(a) To the surviving husband or w ife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or both, in the
discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or w ife, or next of
kin, requests to have appointed, if competent and w illing to serve; Blog Archive
(b) If such surviving husband or w ife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or the person April 2019 (8)
selected by them, be incompetent or unw illing, or if the husband or w idow, or next of kin,
neglects for thirty (30) days after the death of the person to apply for administration or to
request that administration be granted to some other person, it may be granted to one or
About M e
more of the principal creditors, if competent and w illing to serve;
(c) If there is no such creditor competent and w illing to serve, it may be granted to such Am bot Dunno
other person as the court may select. View my complete prof ile

i) Sec. 2. Rule 78 of the Rules of Court - Contents of petition for letters of administration.
A petition for letters of administration must be filed by an interested person and must show, Contact us through our Facebook page:

2 of 4 4/2/2020, 4:53 pm
Noob Case Digest: Ocampo vs Ocampo Case Digest G.R. No. 187879 ; J... http://noobcasedigest.blogspot.com/2019/04/ocampo-vs-ocampo-case-di...

so far as know n to the petitioner: https://www.facebook.com

(a) The jurisdictional facts; /noobcasedigest/
(b) The names, ages, and residences of the heirs, and the names and residences of the
creditors, of the decedent;
(c) The probable value and character of the property of the estate;
(d) The name of the person for w hom letters of administration are prayed.
This w ork by Ambot Dunno is
FACTS: Petitioners Dalisay et al. are the surviving w ife and the children of Leonardo. licensed under a Creative Commons
Leonardo, together w ith his siblings Renato and Erlinda (Respondents), jointly controlled, Attribution-NonCommercial-
managed, and administered the estate of their parents, Spouses Ocampo. Under such NoDerivatives 4.0 International
circumstance, Leonardo had been receiving his share consisting of one-third (1/3) of the License.
total income generated from the properties of the estate. Subsequently, Leonardo died and
he w as survived by his w ife and the children (Petitioners Dalisay). When Leonardo died,
respondents took possession, control and management of the properties to the exclusion
of petitioners and the petitoners no longer received the 1/3 portion of Leonardo.

Petitioners then initiated a petition for intestate proceedings in the RTC. Respondents, in
their counter-petition prayed that they be appointed as special joint administrators of the
estate of their parents. RTC granted respondents’ counter-petition. Petitioners in their
Comment prayed that, in order to avoid further delay, letters of administration to serve as
joint administrators of the subject estate be issued to respondents and Dalisay. RTC
appointed Dalisay and Renato as special joint administrators of the estate of the deceased
spouses. But RTC later revoked the appointment of Dalisay as co-special administratrix and
substituted her w ith Erlinda. Petitioners filed a Motion to Terminate or Revoke the Special
Administration. RTC granted this and revoked and terminated the appointment of Renato
and Erlinda as joint special administrators and appointed Melinda as regular administratrix.

respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the
CA. CA ruled that RTC gravely abused its discretion in revoking respondents’ appointment
as joint special administrators, and for appointing Melinda as regular administratrix w ithout
conducting a formal hearing to determine her competency to assume such role. Hence, this
instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

ISSUE/S:
1)WON it w as proper for the RTC to revoke the appointment of respondents as joint special
administrators.
2) WON it w as proper for the RTC to appointment Melinda as regular administrator.

HELD:
1) YES. Selection or removal of special administrators is not governed by the rules
regarding the selection or removal of regular administrator. The probate court may appoint
or remove special administrators based on grounds other than those enumerated in the
Rules at its discretion. Selection or removalof special administrators is at the discretion of
the court as long as the discretion is exercised w ithout grave abuse, and is based on
reason, equity, justice, and legal principles, interference by higher courts is unw arranted
Indeed, even if special administrators had already been appointed, once the probate court
finds the appointees no longer entitled to its confidence, it is justified in w ithdraw ing the
appointment and giving no valid effect thereto.

In this case, the RTC revoked respondents’ appointment as special administrators for failing
to post their administrators’ bond and to submit an inventory and accounting as required of
them, tantamount to failing to comply w ith its law ful orders. Hencethe revocation of
respondents’ appointment as Special Administrator w as proper

2) NO. Sec. 1 to 6 Rule 78 of the Rules of Court contains the provision for the determination
of the person to be appointed as regular administrator. But in this case, the capacity,
competency, and legality of Melinda’s appointment as such w as not properly objected to by
respondents despite being the next of kin to the decedent spouses, and w as not threshed
out by the RTC acting as a probate court in accordance w ith the above mentioned Rules.
Hence, Melinda’s appointment as a regular administrator w as not proper.

Melinda’s appointment is supposed to be revoked. How ever, having in mind the objective of
facilitating the settlement of the estate of Vicente and Maxima and posting of bond by

3 of 4 4/2/2020, 4:53 pm
Noob Case Digest: Ocampo vs Ocampo Case Digest G.R. No. 187879 ; J... http://noobcasedigest.blogspot.com/2019/04/ocampo-vs-ocampo-case-di...

Melinda, w ith a view to putting an end to the squabbles of the heirs, Melinda’s appointment
should be converted into one of special administration.

Posted by Ambot Dunno

Labels: Remedial Digest, SpecPro Case Digest

No comments:

Post a Comment

Enter your comment...

Comment as: Google A ccount

Publish Preview

Newer Post Hom e Older Post

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

T heme images by molotovcoketail. Powered by Blogger.

4 of 4 4/2/2020, 4:53 pm