RULE 80: SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR

ISSUES W/
# CASE TITLE/ GR FACTS CATEGORICAL RULING
NO./DATES ANSWER

1 OCAMPO vs OCAMPO Petitioners are the surviving wife and the WON it was proper ROLE OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR
G.R. No. 187879 children of Leonardo Ocampo who died on for the RTC to
July 5, 2010 Jan. 23, 2004. Leonardo and his siblings revoke the A special administrator is an officer of the court who is subject to its
respondents are the legitimate children appointment of supervision and control, expected to work for the best interest of the
and only heirs of spouses Vicenta and respondents as entire estate, with a view to its smooth administration and speedy
Pg.106 & 108 DeLeon Maxima Ocampo who died intestate. joint special settlement.
administrators
Petitioners initiated a petition for intestate When appointed, he or she is not regarded as an agent or representative
proceedings and alleged that upon the YES of the parties suggesting the appointment. The principal object of the
death of Vicente and Maxima respondents appointment of a temporary administrator is to preserve the estate until
and their brother Leonardo jointly it can pass to the hands of a person fully authorized to administer it for
controlled the estate of their parents. the benefit of creditors and heirs, pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 80 of the
However, when Leonardo died, Rules of Court.
respondents took possession, control and
management of properties to the exclusion UP NOTES: Removal of Special Administrators The probate court
of petitioners. may appoint or remove special administrators based on grounds other
than those enumerated in the Rules at its discretion, such that the need
On March 13, 2008, the RTC through to first pass upon and resolve the issues of fitness or unfitness and the
Motion by the petitioners revoked and application of the order of preference under Section 6 of Rule 78, as
terminated the appointment of Renato and would be proper in the case of a regular administrator, do not obtain.
Erlinda as Joint special administrators, on
account of their failure to comply with its As long as the discretion is exercised without grave abuse, and is based
order, particularly the posting of the on reason, equity, justice, and legal principles, interference by higher
required bond, and to enter their duties courts is unwarranted.
and responsibilities as special
administrators. Inasmuch as there was a disagreement as to who should be appointed as
administrator of the estate of Vicente and Maxima, the RTC, acting as a
The RTC appointed Melinda as regular probate court, deemed it wise to appoint joint special administrators
administratrix, subject to the posting of a pending the determination of the person or persons to whom letters of
bond in the amount of P200,000.00. administration may be issued. The RTC was justified in doing so
Aggrieved, respondent filed a petition for considering that such disagreement caused undue delay in the
certiorari under Rule 65 of ROC before the issuance of letters of administration, pursuant to Section 1 of Rule
CA, ascribing grave abuse of discretion on 80 of the Rules of Court.
the part of the RTC in revoking
respondents appointment as joint special DELEON PG 109: The appointment or removal of special administrators,
administrators without first ruling on their being discretionary, is thus interlocutory and may be assailed through a
motion for exemption from bond, and for petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the ROC.
appointing Melinda as regular
administratrix without conducting a formal
hearing to determine her competency to
 assume as such. CA granted the petition.

2 CASTILLO vs Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel, wife of Lorenzo B. WON the RATIONALE FOR APPOINTING A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR
LACUATA-GABRIEL Almoradie, died leaving behind a sizable appointment of
inheritance consisting mostly of real estate respondent as The basis for appointing a special administrator under the Rules is broad
GR NO. 162934 and shares of stock. special enough to include any cause or reason for the delay in granting letters
NOVEMBER 11, 2005 administratrix of testamentary or of administration as where a contest as to the will is
One Belinda Castillo, claiming to be the the estate left by being carried on in the same or in another court, or where there is an
pg. 108 DeLeon only legitimate child of Lorenzo and Crisanta Yanga- appeal pending as to the proceeding on the removal of an executor or
Crisanta, filed a motion for intervention. Gabriel is proper. administrator, or in cases where the parties cannot agree among
Resolution on this motion was, however, themselves.
held in abeyance pending some incidents YES
in the CA. Likewise, when from any cause, general administration cannot be
immediately granted, a special administrator may be appointed to
Roberto Gabriel, the legally adopted son of collect and preserve the property of the deceased.
Crisanta, filed a petition for probate of an
alleged will and for the issuance of letters It includes those incidents which transpired in the instant case clearly
testamentary in his favor. He alleged that showing that there is a delay in the probate of the will and that the
he discovered his mother’s will in which he granting of letters testamentary will consequently be prolonged
was instituted as the sole heir of the necessitating the immediate appointment of a special administrator.
testatrix, and designated as alternate
executor for the named executor therein, a ORDER OF PREFERENCE NOT APPLICABLE TO SPECIAL
brother of Crisanta, who had predeceased ADMINISTRATOR
the latter. Belinda Castillo died.
The appointment of a special administrator lies entirely in the discretion
The intestate proceedings was dismissed of the court. The order of preference in the appointment of a regular
and the probate court appointed Roberto administrator under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court does
Gabriel as special administrator of his not apply to the selection of a special administrator.
mother’s estate. The heirs of Belinda filed a
Motion praying that they be substituted as In the issuance of such appointment, which is but temporary and
party-litigants in lieu of their late mother. subsists only until a regular administrator is appointed, the court
determines who is entitled to the administration of the estate of the
Roberto Gabriel died. His widow, the decedent. On this point, We hold that the preference of private
respondent filed a "Manifestation and respondent Dolores Gabriel is with sufficient reason.
Motion" where she informed the probate
court of her husband’s death and prayed
that she be admitted as substitute in place
of her late husband, and be appointed as
administratrix of the estate of Crisanta
Gabriel as well.

3 TAN vs GEDORIO Gerardo Tan died leaving no will. Private WON the CA erred THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR LIES ENTIRELY
respondents, who are claiming to be the in not naming IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT AND IS NOT APPEALABLE.
G.R. No. 166520 children of Gerardo Tan, filed with the RTC petitioner Vilma
March 14, 2008 a Petition for the issuance of letters of Tan being next of This Court has consistently ruled that the order of preference in the
administration. Petitioners, claiming to be kin the priority as appointment of a regular administrator as provided in the afore-
legitimate heirs of Gerardo Tan, filed an special quoted provision does not apply to the selection of a special
Opposition to the Petition. administrator in administrator.
 Gerardo’s estate
Private respondents then moved for the following the order The preference under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court for the next
appointment of a special administrator, of preference as of kin refers to the appointment of a regular administrator, and not of a
asserting the need for a special found in Section special administrator, as the appointment of the latter lies entirely in the
administrator to take possession and 6, Rule 78 of the discretion of the court.
charge of Gerardo’s estate until the Rules of Court
Petition can be resolved by the RTC or If petitioners really desire to avail themselves of the order of preference
until the appointment of a regular NO. provided in Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, so that petitioner
administrator. They prayed that their Vilma as the supposed next of kin of the late Gerardo may take over
attorney-in-fact, Romualdo Lim, be administration of Gerardo’s estate, they should already pursue the
appointed as the special administrator. appointment of a regular administrator and put to an end the delay
which necessitated the appointment of a special administrator.
Petitioners filed an Opposition to private
respondents’ Motion for Appointment, The appointment of a special administrator is justified only when there is
arguing that none of the private delay in granting letters, testamentary (in case the decedent leaves
respondents can be appointed as the behind a will) or administrative (in the event that the decedent leaves
special administrator since they are not behind no will, as in the Petition at bar) occasioned by any cause. The
residing in the country. Petitioners principal object of the appointment of a temporary administrator is to
contend further that Romualdo does not preserve the estate until it can pass into the hands of a person fully
have the same familiarity, experience or authorized to administer it for the benefit of creditors and heirs.
competence as that of their co-petitioner
Vilma Tan who was already acting as de In the case at bar, private respondents were constrained to move for the
facto administratrix of his estate since his appointment of a special administrator due to the delay caused by the
death. failure of petitioner Vilma to comply with the directives of the court-
appointed commissioner. It would certainly be unjust if petitioner Vilma
Atty. Nuevo, as court-appointed were still appointed special administratix, when the necessity of
commissioner, issued directives to Vilma, appointing one has been brought about by her defiance of the lawful
in her capacity as de facto administratrix orders of the RTC or its appointed officials.
requiring all money and or cash at hand or
deposited in the bank(s), all sugarcane Petitioners submit the defense that petitioner Vilma was unable to
harvest or any crop harvest, if any, which comply with the directives of the RTC to deposit with the court the
belong to the estate of the decedent and income of Gerardo’s estate and to provide an accounting thereof because
also required to submit a financial report of the fact that Gerardo’s estate had no income.
to the Commission.
This defense is clearly specious and insufficient justification for petitioner
More than a year later, the RTC, acting on Vilma’s non-compliance. If the estate truly did not have any income,
the private respondents’ Urgent Ex-parte petitioners should have simply filed a manifestation to that effect, instead
Motion to resolve pending incident, gave of continuing to disregard the court’s orders.
Vilma another 10 days to comply with the
directive of Atty. Nuevo. Again, no
compliance has been made.

Consequently, RTC Judge Menchavez

issued an Order appointing Romualdo as
special administrator of Gerardo’s Estate.

Petitioners filed a Motion for

 Reconsideration claiming that petitioner
Vilma should be the one appointed as
special administratix as she was
allegedly next of kin of the deceased.

After denial of motion for reconsideration,

petitioners instituted with the Court of
Appeals a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition assailing Order and again
insisting on petitioner Vilma’s right to be
appointed as special administratix.

The CA issued a Decision denying

petitioners’ Petition. Hence, this appeal.

4 MANUNGAS vs Engracia Manungas was the wife of WON the CA erred THE ROLE OF A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR IS TO PRESERVE THE
LORETO Florentino Manungas. They had no in finding grave ESTATE UNTIL A REGULAR ADMINISTRATOR IS APPOINTED.
children. Instead, they adopted Samuel abuse of discretion
G.R. No. 193161, David Avila. Florentino Manungas died on RTC decision The fact that Diosdado is an heir to the estate of Florentino Manungas
August 22, 2011 intestate on May 29, 1977, while Avila when it appointed does not mean that he is entitled or even qualified to become the special
predeceased his adoptive mother. Avila petitioner administrator of the Estate of Engracia Manungas.
was survived by his wife Sarah Abarte Vda. Diosdado
de Manungas. Manungas on the While the trial court has the discretion to appoint anyone as a
ground that he is special administrator of the estate, such discretion must be
Thereafter, Engracia Manungas filed a the illegitimate exercised with reason, guided by the directives of equity, justice and
Motion for Partition of Estate in the child of the late legal principles.
intestate estate proceedings of Florentino Florentino
Manungas, of which she was the Manangus instead It may, therefore, not be remiss to reiterate that the role of a special
administratrix. Thereafter, a Decree of of Florencia administrator is to preserve the estate until a regular administrator
Final Distribution was issued in the Parreño as special is appointed. As stated in Sec. 2, Rule 80 of the Rules:
intestate estate proceedings of Florentino administrator
Manungas distributing the properties to Section 2. Powers and duties of special adminsitrator. — Such
Engracia Manungas and Ramon NO. special administrator shall take possession and charge of the
Manungas, the surviving heirs. goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate of the deceased and
preserve the same for the executors or administrator afterwards
The RTC in Panabo City, appointed appointed, and for that purpose may commence and maintain
Parreño, the niece of Engracia Manungas, suits as administrator. He may sell only such perishable and
as the Judicial Guardian of the properties other property as the court orders sold. A special administrator
and person of her incompetent aunt. shall not be liable to pay any debts of the deceased unless so
ordered by the court.1avvphi1
Engracia Manungas, through Parreño,
then instituted Civil Case against the Given this duty on the part of the special administrator, it would,
spouses Salinas for illegal detainer and therefore, be prudent and reasonable to appoint someone interested in
damages with the MTC in Panabo City. In preserving the estate for its eventual distribution to the heirs. Such
their answer, the spouses Salinas claimed choice would ensure that such person would not expose the estate to
that Diosdado is the illegitimate son of losses that would effectively diminish his or her share. While the court
Florentino Manungas. The MTC issued a may use its discretion and depart from such reasoning, still, there is
summary judgment in favor of Engracia no logical reason to appoint a person who is a debtor of the estate
Manungas. and otherwise a stranger to the deceased. To do so would be
tantamount to grave abuse of discretion.
The Decision was appealed by the spouses
Salinas to the RTC of Tagum, Davao City Hence, the CA ruled that the trial court erred in issuing its Order, acting
which affirmed in toto the Decision of the with grave abuse of discretion in appointing Diosdado as the special
MTC. administrator of Engracia Manungas’ estate.

Thereafter, Diosdado instituted a petition The evidence on record shows that Diosdado is not related to the late
for the issuance of letters of administration Engracia and so he is not interested in preserving the latter’s estate. On
over the Estate of Engracia Manungas in the other hand, Florencia, who is a former Judicial guardian of Engracia
his favor before the RTC, Branch 2 in when she was still alive and who is also the niece of the latter, is
Tagum City, Davao. He alleged that he, interested in protecting and preserving the estate of her late aunt
being an illegitimate son of Florentino Engracia, as by doing so she would reap the benefit of a wise
Manungas, is an heir of Engracia administration of the decedent’s estate. Hence, the Order of the lower
Manungas. The petition was opposed by court revoking the appointment of Florencia Avila Parreño as special
Loreto and Parreño alleging that Diosdado administrator constitutes not only a reversible error, but also a grave
was incompetent as an administrator of abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
the Estate of Manungas claiming that he
was not a Manungas, that he was not an To reiterate, the subject of the intestate proceedings is the estate of
heir of Engracia Manungas, he was not a Engracia Manungas. It must be remembered that the estate of Florentino
creditor of Engracia Manungas or her Manungas was already the subject of intestate proceedings that have long
estate and that he was in fact a debtor of been terminated with the proceeds distributed to the heirs with the
the estate having been found liable to issuance of a Decree of Final Distribution. With the termination of the
Engracia Manungas for PhP 177,000 by intestate estate proceedings of Florentino Manungas, Diosdado, as an
virtue of a Decision issued by the MTC in illegitimate heir of Florentino Manungas, is still not an heir of Engracia
Civil Cas. Ohe RTC issued an Order Manungas and is not entitled to receive any part of the Estate of
appointing Parreño as the administrator of Manungas.
the Estate of Manungas.
In fact, Diosdado is a debtor of the estate and would have no interest
Diosdado filed a Motion for in preserving its value. There is no reason to appoint him as its
Reconsideration and the RTC issued an special administrator. The trial court acted with grave abuse of
Order reversing itself and ordering the discretion in appointing Diosdado as special administrator of the
revocation of its earlier appointment of Estate of Manungas.
Parreño as the administrator of the Estate
of Manungas while appointing Diosdado as
the Special Administrator.

Parreño and Loreto appealed the ruling of

the RTC to the CA. The CA issued its
assailed the Decision finding that the RTC
acted with grave abuse of discretion in
revoking its earlier appointment of Parreño
as the administrator of the Estate of
Manungas and appointing Diosdado
instead. The CA further reinstated Parreño
as the special administrator of the estate.
 RULE 82: REVOCATION OF ADMINISTRATION, DEATH, RESIGNATION
AND REMOVAL OF EXECUTORS OR ADMINISTRATORS

ISSUES W/
# CASE TITLE/ GR FACTS CATEGORICAL RULING
NO./DATES ANSWER

1 MENDIOLA vs CA The petitioner and private respondents are WON the Court THE REMOVAL OF AN ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SECTION 2 OF
the surviving heirs of the late Carlos erred in ordering RULE 82 LIES WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT
G.R. No. 92999 Mendiola who died on December 28, 1984. the removal of the APPOINTING HIM
October 11, 1990 Florentina Mendiola is the surviving petitioner as the
spouse while the petitioner and all the executor The removal of the petitioner is in accordance with the provisions of
private respondents are the children of the Section 2, Rule 82 of the Rules of Court that:
GRIÑO-AQUINO, J. deceased. NO
"If an executor or administrator neglects to render his account and settle
A petition for probate of a will was filed by the estate according to law, or to perform an order or judgment of the
the petitioner on March 30, 1987 in the court, or a duty expressly provided by these rules, or absconds, or
Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila becomes insane, or otherwise incapable or unsuitable to discharge the
entitled ‘Probate of the Will and Testament trust, the court may remove him, or in its discretion, may permit him to
of Deceased Carlos Mendiola’ Sp. Proc. No. resign . . . .”
10027 which was set for hearing on
August 18, 1987. "The determination of a person’s suitability for the office of judicial
administrator rests, to a great extent, in the sound judgment of the
The RTC rendered a decision allowing the court exercising the power of appointment and said judgment is not
will and issuing letters testamentary in to be interfered with on appeal unless the said court is clearly in
favor of the petitioner who was declared error."
executor of the estate of the deceased in
the will and letters testamentary was "The removal of an administrator under Section 2 of Rule 82 lies within
issued in favor of the petitioner. the discretion of the court appointing him.

Private respondents filed a motion for the Petitioner failed to pay the estate tax. Petitioner’s own counsel, Atty.
removal of the executor and another Gregorio Ejercito, admitted in a Manifestation that his client indeed has
motion for the appointment of Redentor no proof or receipt of payment of the estate tax. Petitioner also failed to
Mendiola of (sic) executor. render an accounting of the estate and settle the same according to law.
Furthermore, he involved the heirs in a transaction with Villarica
The respondent-Judge granted the motion Pawnshop which, because of petitioner’s failure to honor his part of the
and ordered the removal of the petitioner bargain, resulted in the filing of a suit by Villarica against the heirs.
as executor and revoked the letters
testamentary. The trial court ordered the
appointment of Redentor Mendiola as
 executor. The Court of Appeals affirmed
the judgment of the trial court.

2 PASCUAL vs CA Don Andres Pascual died intestate and WON the intestate WHERE AN APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR DIES, THE APPLICABLE
was survived by (1) his widow, Doña Adela court had lost RULE IS SECTION 2, RULE 82 OF THE RULES OF COURT, WHICH
G.R. No. 120575. Soldevilla Pascual; (2) the children of his jurisdiction over REQUIRES THE APPOINTMENT OF A NEW ADMINISTRATOR
December 16, 1998. full blood brother, Wenceslao Pascual, Sr. the person of
—Esperanza C. Pascual-Bautista, Manuel Doña Adela (the The death of Doña Adela did not ipso facto extinguish the monetary claim
PANGANIBAN, J C. Pascual, Jose C. Pascual, Susana C. attorney’s client) of private respondent or require him to refile his claim with the court
Pascual-Guerrero, Erlinda C. Pascual and due to her death. hearing the settlement of her testate estate. Had he filed the claim
Wenceslao C. Pascual, Jr.; (3) the children against Doña Adela personally, the rule would have applied. However, he
of his half blood brother Pedro Pascual— NO did so against the estate of Don Andres.
Avelino Pascual, Isosceles Pascual, Leida
Pascual-Martinez, Virginia Pascual-Ner, Thus, where an appointed administrator dies, the applicable rule is
Nona Pascual-Fernando, Octavio Pascual Section 2, Rule 82 of the Rules of Court, which requires the
and Geranaia Pascual-Dubert; (4) the appointment of a new administrator, viz.:
intestate estate of his full blood brother
Eleuterio T. Pascual represented by “Sec. 2. Court may remove or accept resignation of executor or
Mamerta P. Fugoso, Abraham S. administrator. Proceedings upon death, resignation or removal.—x
Sarmiento III, Dominga M. Pascual, Regina x x When an executor or administrator dies, resigns, or is removed, the
Sarmiento-Macaibay, Dominga P. San remaining executor or administrator may administer the trust alone,
Diego, Nelia P. Marquez, Silvestre M. unless the court grants letter to someone to act with him. If there is no
Pascual and Eleuterio M. Pascual; and (4) remaining executor or administrator, administration may be granted to
the acknowledged natural children of his any suitable person.”
full blood brother Eligio Pascual—Hermes
S. Pascual and Olivia S. Pascual (herein
The rule does not have the effect of divesting the intestate court of
petitioner).
jurisdiction. Its jurisdiction subsists because the proper party in this
case is the estate of Don Andres, which is distinct and separate from that
Doña Adela (the surviving spouse) filed of Doña Adela who merely served as the former’s administratrix. Doña
with the then CFI of Pasig, Rizal, a petition Adela was merely a representative party, and the claim was an item of the
for letters of administration over the estate administrative expense of Don Andres’ estate. It is well-settled that a
of her husband. After due notice and monetary claim against the person administering an estate, in relation to
hearing, the CFI appointed her special his or her acts of administration, in its ordinary course, can be filed at
administratrix. Doña Adela hired Atty. the court where a special proceeding for the settlement of the estate is
Jesus I. Santos, herein private pending.
respondent, as her counsel for a fee
equivalent to 15% of the gross estate of
Hence, in spite of the death of the appointed administratrix, it was the
the decedent.
duty of the intestate court to determine whether the private respondent’s
claim was allowable as administrative expense—if it was obtained in
When BP Blg. 129 took effect, the petition reference to the management of the estate; the performance of legal
was reassigned to the RTC of Pasig, Br. services which the administratrix herself could not perform; the
162, presided by Judge Manuel Padolina. prosecution or defense of actions or suits on behalf of or against the
The heirs of the decedent moved for the estate; or the discovery, recovery or preservation of properties of the
approval of their Compromise Agreement, estate.
stipulating that 3/4 of the estate would go
to Doña Adela and 1/4 to the other heirs.
In other words, the intestate court has a mandate to resolve whether the
The intestate court approved said
Agreement. said claim is a “necessary expense in the care, management and
settlement of the estate.”
While the settlement was still pending,
Doña Adela died, leaving a will which For the same reason, the fact that the private respondent’s lien was
named the petitioner as the sole universal recorded four months after the administratrix had died is of no moment.
heir. The latter filed at the RTC a petition
for probate of a will.

The RTC of Pasig denied the motion to

reiterate hereditary rights, which was filed
by petitioner and her brother. The Court
reasoned that, as illegitimate children of
the brother of the decedent, they were
barred from acquiring any hereditary right
to her intestate estate under Article 992 of
the Civil Code.

Judge Padolina rendered a Decision

regarding the manner of the partition of
the estate of Don Andres: ‘1/4 of the
properties, personal and real, to the heirs
of Don Andres Pascual; 3/4 of the
properties personal and real, to the estate
of Doña Adela Pascual, and cancel the
certificates of title in the name of Don
Andres Pascual, and issue new Certificates
of Title in the manner of partition above-
mentioned indicating therein the portions
they are entitled to.

This Court awards the attorney’s fees of

Atty. Jesus Santos equivalent to 15% of
the 3/4 share of the estate of Doña Adela
S. Pascual.

The private respondent filed Motion for the

Issuance of a Writ of Execution insofar as
the payment of his attorney’s fees was
concerned. The motion was granted
directing “the issuance of a writ of
execution in the partial amount of
P2,000,000.00 in favor of movant, Atty.
Santos to be implemented against the 3/4
share of Doña Adela S. Pascual, upon
payment by the movant of the prescribed
docket fees for the said partial amount.
 Branch Clerk of Court Camacho issued a
Writ of Execution; and Sheriff Maog, a
Notice of Garnishment to the San
Francisco Del Monte Rural Bank,
garnishing deposits and shares of stocks
belonging to the estate of Doña Adela
sufficient to cover the amount of P2
million.

Petitioner filed with the CA a petition for

annulment of the award of attorney’s fees
and writ of execution which was denied.

RULE 83: INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL.

PROVISION FOR SUPPORT OF FAMILY

ISSUES W/
# CASE TITLE/ GR FACTS CATEGORICAL RULING
NO./DATES ANSWER

1 SANTERO vs CFI OF Petitioners are the children of the late Whether or not the WHILE SECTION 3 APPEARS TO LIMIT THE ALLOWANCE TO THE
CAVITE Pablo Santero with Felixberta Pacursa CFI acted with SURVIVING SPOUSE AND MINOR OR INCAPACITATED CHILDREN,
while the Respondents are the four of the abuse of discretion THE SC HAS RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT OF AN EMANCIPATED CHILD
G.R. No. L-61700 seven children of Pablo Santero with in granting the OF THE DECEDENT TO SUPPORT
Sept. 14, 1987 Anselma Diaz. allowance to
respondents The controlling provision of law is not Rule 83, Sec. 3 but Arts. 290 and
Both sets of children are the natural despite the fact 188 of the NCC. The fact that Respondents are of age, gainfully employed,
children of the late Pablo since neither of that all of them or married is of no moment and should not be regarded as the
their mothers was married to their father. are not minors determining factor of their right to allowance under Art. 188.
Pablo was the only legitimate son of and all are
Pascual Santero and Simona Pamuti Vda. gainfully employed While the Rules of Court limit the allowances to the widow and
de Santero. with the exception minor or incapacitated children of the deceased, the NCC gives the
of Miguel. surviving spouse and his/her children without distinction. Hence,
The issue in this case springs from the respondents are entitled to allowances as advances from their shares
Motion for Allowance filed by Respondents in the inheritance from their father Pablo.
through their guardian, Anselma in 1981 NO
wherein the ground cited was for support Since the provisions of the NCC, a substantive law, gives the surviving
which included educational expenses, spouse and to the children the right to receive support during the
clothing and medical necessities, which liquidation of the estate of the deceased, such right cannot be impaired
was granted. by Rule 83 which is a procedural rule.

Again, Respondents filed a Motion for Art. 290. Support is everything that is indispensable for
Allowance in 1982, citing the same
grounds. Petitioners opposed and sustenance, dwelling, clothing and medical attendance, according
contended that the wards for whom to the social position of the family.
allowance is sought are no longer
schooling and have attained majority Support also includes the education of the person entitled to be
age so that they are no longer under supported until he completes his education or training for some
guardianship. They likewise allege that profession, trade or vocation, even beyond the age of majority.
the administrator does not have sufficient
funds to cover the said allowance because Art. 188. From the common mass of property support shall be
whatever funds are in the hands of the given to the surviving spouse and to the children during the
administrator, they constitute funds held liquidation of the inventoried property and until what belongs to
in trust for the benefit of whoever will be them is delivered; but from this shall be deducted that amount
adjudged as owners of the Kawit property received for support which exceeds the fruits or rents pertaining to
from which said administrator derives the them.
only income of the intestate estate of
Pablo.

In the Reply to the Opposition filed by

Anselma, she admitted that some of her
children are of age and not enrolled for the
first semester due to lack of funds but will
be enrolled as soon as they are given the
requested allowances. She cited Art. 290 of
the Civil Code and Sec. 3 of Rule 83 of the
Rules of Court. The CFI granted allowance
of P2,000 each to the respondents.

While the case was pending in the SC,

respondents filed another Motion for
Allowance to include Juanita, Estelita and
Pedro Santero as children of Pablo with
Anselma praying that an order be granted
directing the administrator to deliver
P6,000 to each of the seven children as
their allowance. CFI granted again but
Petitioners asked the CFI to reconsider.

An Amended Order was issued directing

Anselma to submit her clarification or
explanation as to the additional three
children included. Anselma stated that in
her previous motions, only the last four
minor children were included and her first
three who were then of age should have
been included since all her children have
the right to receive allowance as advance
payment of their shares in the inheritance
of Pablo under Art. 188 of the New Civil
 Code. CFI issued another Order directing
the administrator to get back the
allowance of the three additional recipients
or children of Anselma.

Petitioners argue that respondents are

not entitled to any allowance since they
have already attained majority — two
are gainfully employed and one is
married as provided for under Sec. 3,
Rule 83 of the Rules of Court.

Petitioners also argue that there was

misinterpretation on the part of the
guardian asking for allowances because
these wards have already attained majority
age so that they are no longer under
guardianship.

2 SEBIAL vs Gelacio Sebal died intestate. He is alleged WON the probate THE 3-MONTH PERIOD TO SUBMIT THE INVENTORY PRESCRIBED
SEBIAL to have had 3 children from his deceased court had no IN SECTION 1 RULE 83 IS NOT MANDATORY
first wife, and 6 with his second wife. jurisdiction to
G.R. No. L-23419 approve the Sec 1. Inventory and appraisal to be returned within three
June 27, 1975 Benjamina Sebial, Gelacio’s child with his inventory dated 17 months.- within 3 months after his appointment, every executor or
second wife, filed a verified petition for the November 1961 administrator shall return to the court a true inventory and
settlement of the estate, with a prayer that because the appraisal of all the real and personal estate of the deceased which
she be appointed administratrix. administratrix has come into his possession or knowledge. In the appraisement of
filed it after 3 such estate, the court may order one or more of the inheritance tax
Roberta Sebial, child from the first wife, months from date appraiser to give his or their assistance.
opposed the same on the ground that the of her
estate had already been partitioned among appointment. After the filing of a petition for the issuance of letters of administration
the children, and that, if an administration and the publication of the notice of hearing, the proper Court of First
proceeding was necessary, that she be NO Instance acquires jurisdiction over a decedent's estate and retains that
declared such, because she was in a better jurisdiction until the proceeding is closed.
position to administer. Oppositors also
contend that remedy should have been for The fact that an inventory was filed after the three-month period
rescission. would not deprive the probate court of jurisdiction to approve it.
However, an administrator's unexplained delay in filing the
Lower Court declared the alleged partition inventory may be a ground for his removal (Sec. 2, Rule 82, Rules of
as invalid and ineffective, and appointed Court).
Benjamina as the administratrix on 19
January 1961. Oppositors moved for the
reconsideration on the same ground, and
further contending that the action to
rescind had already prescribed. The
motion was denied.
On 27 April 1961 Benjamina filed an
inventory and appraisal of decedent’s
estate. Oppisitors opposed the same on
ground that the seven parcels of land
enumerated therein no longer formed part
of the decedent’s estate.

On 24 June 1961 the probate court

ordered an order suspending action in view
of the possibility of amicable settlement. It
ordered the parties to prepare a complete
list of the properties belonging to the
decedent, with a segregation of the
properties belonging to each marriage.

On November 11, 1961 the oppositors,,

submitted their own inventory of the
conjugal assets of Gelacio Sebial and
Leoncia Manikis.

In an order dated November 11, 1961 the

lower court inexplicably required the
administratrix to submit another
inventory. Benjamina then submitted an
inventory dated November 17, 1961,
wherein she reproduced her inventory
dated April 17, 1961 and added two other
items, namely, two houses allegedly valued
at P8,000 and the fruits of the properties
amounting to P5,000 allegedly received by
the children of the first marriage. The
oppositor interposed an opposition to the
said inventory.

On December 11, 1961 the lower court

approved the second inventory dated
November, 17, 1961 because there was
allegedly a "prima facie evidence to show
that" the seven parcels of land and two
houses listed therein belonged to the
decedent's estate. It also granted the
motion of the administratrix dated May 4,
1961 for the delivery to her of certain
parcels of land and it directed that the
heirs of Gelacio Sebial, who are in
possession of the parcels of land covered
by Tax Declarations Nos. 04493, 04491,
 04490 and 04478, should deliver those
properties to the administratrix and
should not disturb her in her possession
and administration of the same.

Oppositors appealed to the CA who then

certified the case to the SC for being
questions of law for the construction of
Sec. 1 of Rule 83 (at issue in this digest),
Sec. 2 of Rule 74, and whether an ordinary
civil action for recovery is the proper
remedy and not an administration
proceeding, considering the contention
that there was already a partition.

3 RUIZ vs CA On June 27, 1987, Hilario Ruiz executed a WON the probate ALLOWANCES FOR SUPPORT UNDER SECTION 3 OF RULE 83
holographic will naming the following as court, after ALLOWS EMANCIPATED CHILDREN BUT NOT GRANDCHILDREN.
G.R. No. 118671. heirs: Edmond Ruiz (son), private admitting the will
January 29, 1996. respondent Maria Pilar Ruiz Montes to probate but It is settled that allowances for support under Section 3 of Rule 83
PUNO, J. (adopted daughter), and his three before payment of should not be limited to the “minor or incapacitated” children of the
granddaughters private respondents (all the estate’s debts deceased. Article 188 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the substantive
children of Edmond Ruiz). The testator and obligations, law in force at the time of the testator’s death, provides that during the
bequeathed to his heirs substantial cash, has the authority liquidation of the conjugal partnership, the deceased’s legitimate spouse
personal and real properties and named to grant an and children, regardless of their age, civil status or gainful employment,
Edmond Ruiz executor of his estate. allowance from the are entitled to provisional support from the funds of the estate. The law is
Immediately after the death of the testator, funds of the estate rooted on the fact that the right and duty to support, especially the right
the cash component of his estate was for the support of to education, subsist even beyond the age of majority.
distributed among the named heirs in the testator’s
accordance with the decedent’s will. For grandchildren. GRANDCHILDREN ARE NOT ENTITLED TO PROVISIONAL SUPPORT
unknown reasons, Edmond did not take FROM THE FUNDS OF THE DECEDENT’S ESTATE.
any action for the probate of his father’s NO.
holographic will. Be that as it may, grandchildren are not entitled to provisional support
from the funds of the decedent’s estate.
Four years after the testator’s death,
private respondent Ruiz-Montes filed The law clearly limits the allowance to “widow and children” and
before the RTC a petition for the probate does not extend it to the deceased’s grandchildren, regardless of
and approval of testator’s will and for the their minority or incapacity.
issuance of letters testamentary to
Edmond Ruiz. However, Edmond opposed
It was error, therefore, for the appellate court to sustain the probate
on the petition on the ground that the will
court’s order granting an allowance to the grandchildren of the testator
was executed under influence.
pending settlement of his estate.
One of the properties of the estate that was
given to the granddaughters where leased
out by Edmond to third persons. He was
then ordered by the probate court to
 deposit with the Branch Clerk of Court
(RTC Branch 156, Pasig) the rental deposit
and payments amounting to
Php540,000.00. After deducting the
repairs and maintenance expenses,
Edmond turned over the amount of
Php348,583.56. He then moved for the
release of Php50,000.00 to pay the real
property taxes.

On May 14, 1993, Edmond withdrew his

opposition to the probate of the will.
Consequently, the will was admitted to
probate and the court ordered the ssuance
of letters testamentary to Edmond
conditioned upon the filing of a bond in the
amount of P50,000.00. The letters
testamentary were issued on June 23,
1993.

RULE 84: GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS

ISSUES W/
# CASE TITLE/ GR FACTS CATEGORICAL RULING
NO./DATES ANSWER

1 RUIZ vs CA On June 27, 1987, Hilario Ruiz executed a WON the assailed THE RIGHT OF AN EXECUTOR OR ADMINISTRATOR TO THE
holographic will naming the following as order deprived the POSSESSION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE REAL AND PERSONAL
G.R. No. 118671. heirs: Edmond Ruiz (son), private petitioner of his PROPERTIES OF THE DECEASED IS NOT ABSOLUTE AND CAN ONLY
January 29, 1996. respondent Maria Pilar Ruiz Montes right to take BE EXERCISED “SO LONG AS IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PAYMENT
PUNO, J. (adopted daughter), and his three possession of all OF THE DEBTS AND EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION.
granddaughters private respondents (all the real and
children of Edmond Ruiz). The testator personal Sec. 3. Executor or administrator to retain whole estate to pay
bequeathed to his heirs substantial cash, properties of the debts, and to administer estate not willed. — An executor or
personal and real properties and named estate. administrator shall have the right to the possession and management of
Edmond Ruiz executor of his estate. the real as well as the personal estate of the deceased so long as it is
Immediately after the death of the testator, NO. necessary for the payment of the debts and expenses for administration.
the cash component of his estate was
distributed among the named heirs in Petitioner must be reminded that his right of ownership over the
accordance with the decedent’s will. For properties of his father is merely inchoate as long as the estate has not
unknown reasons, Edmond did not take been fully settled and partitioned.
any action for the probate of his father’s
holographic will. As executor, he is a mere trustee of his father’s estate. The funds of
the estate in his hands are trust funds and he is held to the duties
Four years after the testator’s death, and responsibilities of a trustee of the highest order.
private respondent Ruiz-Montes filed
before the RTC a petition for the probate He cannot unilaterally assign to himself and possess all his parents’
and approval of testator’s will and for the properties and the fruits thereof without first submitting an inventory
issuance of letters testamentary to and appraisal of all real and personal properties of the deceased,
Edmond Ruiz. However, Edmond opposed rendering a true account of his administration, the expenses of
on the petition on the ground that the will administration, the amount of the obligations and estate tax, all of which
was executed under influence. are subject to a determination by the court as to their veracity, propriety
One of the properties of the estate that was and justness.
given to the granddaughters where leased
out by Edmond to third persons. He was
then ordered by the probate court to
deposit with the Branch Clerk of Court
(RTC Branch 156, Pasig) the rental deposit
and payments amounting to
Php540,000.00. After deducting the
repairs and maintenance expenses,
Edmond turned over the amount of
Php348,583.56. He then moved for the
release of Php50,000.00 to pay the real
property taxes.

On May 14, 1993, Edmond withdrew his

opposition to the probate of the will.
Consequently, the will was admitted to
probate and the court ordered the ssuance
of letters testamentary to Edmond
conditioned upon the filing of a bond in the
amount of P50,000.00. The letters
testamentary were issued on June 23,
1993.