RULE 84
GENERAL POWERS AND
DUTIES OF EXECUTORS
AND ADMINISTRATORS
Get Started
RULE 84
GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF AN
ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR
SECTION 1
A. He or she shall at all times have access to,
and may examine and take copies of, books and
papers relating to the partnership business
B. He or she may examine and make invoices
of the property belonging to such partnership
RULE 84
GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF AN
ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR
SECTION 2
He or she shall maintain in tenanble repair the
houses and other structures and fences
belonging to the estate, and deliver the same in
such repair to the heirs or devisees when
directed so to do by the court.
RULE 84
GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF AN
ADMINISTRATOR OR EXECUTOR
SECTION 3
He or she shall have the right to the possession
and management of the real as well as the
personal estate of the deceased so long as it is
necessary for the payment of the debts and the
expenses of administration.
RULE 84
THE ESTATE OF HILARIO M. RUIZ vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS
Hilario M. Ruiz executed a holographic will wherein he bequeathed to his heirs substantial cash, personal and real
properties and named Edmond Ruiz executor of his estate. When he died the cash component of his estate was
distributed among his heirs in accordance with his will. Edmond, the named executor, did not take any action for the
probate of his father's holographic will.
Four years after the testator's death, Maria Pilar Ruiz Montes filed before the RTC of Pasig, a petition for the probate
and approval of Hilario Ruiz's will and for the issuance of letters testamentary to Edmond Ruiz. Edmond opposed the
petition on the ground that the will was executed under undue influence.
One of the properties of the estate was leased out by Edmond Ruiz to third persons and he turned over the balance of
the rent after deducting repair and maintenance expenses on the estate. He moved for the release of P50,000.00 to pay
the real estate taxes on the real properties of the estate. The probate court approved the release of P7,722.00. He then
withdrew his opposition to the probate of the will. Consequently, the probate court admitted the will to probate and
issued letters testamentary to Edmond.
RULE 84
THE ESTATE OF HILARIO M. RUIZ vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS
The Testate Estate of Hilario Ruiz, with Edmond Ruiz as executor, filed a motion for the release of the rent payments
deposited with the Branch Clerk of Court. Montes opposed the motion and filed a motion for the release of the said rent
payments to Maria Cathryn, Candice Albertine, and Maria Angeline and for the distribution of the testator's properties
in accordance with the provisions of the holographic will.
The probate court denied the motion of Ruiz and granted the motion of Montes. Ruiz moved for reconsideration and
manifested that he was withdrawing his motion for release of funds in view of the fact that the lease contract over the
Valle Verde property had been renewed for another year. The probate court ordered the release of the funds to Edmond
but only "such amount as may be necessary to cover the expenses of administration and allowances for support" of the
testator's three granddaughters subject to collation and deductible from their share in the inheritance.
Petitioner assailed the order of the probate court before the Court of Appeals. The appellate court dismissed the petition
and sustained the probate court's order.
RULE 84
THE ESTATE OF HILARIO M. RUIZ vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS
Whether the probate court deprived the petitioner of his right to take possession of all properties of the estate as the executor
of the will?
No. The right of an executor or administrator to the possession and management of the real and personal properties of
the deceased is not absolute and can only be exercised "so long as it is necessary for the payment of the debts and
expenses of administration,"
The petitioner must be reminded that his right of ownership over the properties of his father is merely inchoate as long
as the estate has not been fully settled and partitioned. As 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 and responsibilities of a trustee of the highest order. He
cannot unilaterally assign to himself and possess all his parents' properties and the fruits thereof without first submitting
an inventory and appraisal of all real and personal properties of the deceased, rendering a true account of his
administration, the expenses of administration, the amount of the obligations and estate tax, all of which are subject to a
determination by the court as to their veracity, propriety, and justness.
RULE 84
MAURO P. MANANQUIL vs. ATTY.
CRISOSTOMO C. VILLEGAS
Atty. Crisostomo C. Villegas was retained as counsel of Felix Leong, one of the heirs of the late Felomina Zerna, who
was appointed as administrator of the Testate Estate of the Felomina Zerna.
Felix Leong was designated as administrator and owner, by testamentary disposition, of 5/6 of parcels of land included in
the estate. A lease contract was executed between Felix Leong and the partnership of HIJOS DE JOSE VILLEGAS,
wherein Atty. Villegas is a partner, involving the sugar lands of the estate. The lifetime of the lease contract was 4 sugar
crop years and was further renewed several times over a period of 20 years. Mauro Mananquil, who was appointed
special administrator after Felix Leong died, charges that these contracts were made without the approval of the probate
court and in violation of Articles 1491 and 1646 of the new Civil Code.
The Solicitor General found that Atty. Villegas committed a breach in the performance of his duties as counsel of
administrator Felix Leong when he allowed the renewal of contracts of lease for properties involved in the testate
proceedings to be undertaken in favor of HIJOS DE JOSE VILLEGAS without notifying and securing the approval of
the probate court.
RULE 84
MAURO P. MANANQUIL vs. ATTY.
CRISOSTOMO C. VILLEGAS
Whether prior authority from the probate court should have been secured before executing the lease contract?
No. Pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 84 of the Revised Rules of Court, a judicial executor or administrator has the right to
the possession and management of the real as well as the personal estate of the deceased so long as it is necessary for the
payment of the debts and the expenses of administration. He may, therefore, exercise acts of administration without
special authority from the court having jurisdiction of the estate. For instance, it has long been settled that an
administrator has the power to enter into lease contracts involving the properties of the estate even without prior judicial
authority and approval.
Thus, considering that administrator Felix Leong was not required under the law and prevailing jurisprudence to seek
prior authority from the probate court in order to validly lease real properties of the estate, respondent, as counsel of
Felix Leong, cannot be taken to task for failing to notify the probate court of the various lease contracts involved herein
and to secure its judicial approval thereto.
RULE 84
MOISES SAN DIEGO, SR. vs. ADELO
NOMBRE and PEDRO ESCANLAR
Adelo Nombre was the duly constituted judicial administrator. He leased one of the properties of the estate (a fishpond
in Kabankaban, Negros Occidental) to Pedro Escanlar. The terms of the lease was for 3 years, with a yearly rental of
P3,000.00. The transaction had been done without previous authority or approval of the Court where the proceedings
was pending.
Nombre was later removed as administrator by Order of the court and Sofronio Campillanos was appointed in his stead.
Escanlar was cited for contempt for his refusal to surrender the fishpond to the newly appointed administrator.
Subsequently, Campillanos filed a motion asking for authority to execute a lease contract of the same fishpond, in favor
of Moises San Diego, Sr. for 5 years at a yearly rental of P5,000.00. Escanlar was not notified of such motion. Nombre
presented a written opposition to the motion of Campillanos pointing out that the fishpond had been leased by him to
Escanlar for 3 years and alleging that the validity of the lease contract entered into by a judicial administrator, must be
recognized unless so declared void in a separate action.
The CFI of Negros Occidental declared that the contract in favor of Escanlar was null and void, for want of judicial
authority and that unless he would offer the same as or better conditions than the prospective lessee, San Diego, there
was no good reason why the motion for authority to lease the property to San Diego should not be granted. Nombre
filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied.
RULE 84
MOISES SAN DIEGO, SR. vs. ADELO
NOMBRE and PEDRO ESCANLAR
A petition for certiorari was presented with the Court of Appeals. Campillanos insisted on the invalidity of the contract
in favor of Escanlar; the lower court alleged that it did not exactly annul or invalidate the lease in his questioned orders
but suggested merely that Escanlar "may file a separate ordinary action in the Court of general jurisdiction."
The Court of Appeals in dismissing the petition for certiorari, held that – No such limitation on the power of a judicial
administrator to grant a lease of property placed under his custody is provided for in the present law. Under Article 1647
of the present Civil Code, it is only when the lease is to be recorded in the Registry of Property that it cannot be
instituted without special authority. Thus, regardless of the period of lease, there is no need of special authority unless
the contract is to be recorded in the Registry of Property. As to whether the contract in favor of Escanlar is to be so
recorded is not material to our inquiry.
On the contrary, Rule 85, Section 3, of the Rules of Court authorizes a judicial administrator, among other things, to
administer the estate of the deceased not disposed of by will. Under this provision, the executor or administrator has the
power of administering the estate of the deceased for purposes of liquidation and distribution. He may, therefore,
exercise all acts of administration without special authority of the Court. For instance, he may lease the property without
securing previously any permission from the court. And where the lease has formally been entered into, the court
cannot, in the same proceeding, annul the same, to the prejudice of the lessee, over whose person it had no jurisdiction.
The proper remedy would be a separate action by the administrator or the heirs to annul the lease.
RULE 84
MOISES SAN DIEGO, SR. vs. ADELO
NOMBRE and PEDRO ESCANLAR
Whether a judicial administrator can validly lease property of the estate without prior judicial authority and approval? Yes.
Whether the provisions of the New Civil Code on Agency should apply to judicial administrators? No.
The Court of Appeals was correct in sustaining the validity of the contract of lease in favor of Escanlar,
notwithstanding the lack of prior authority and approval. The law and prevailing jurisprudence on the matter
militates in favor of this view. While it may be admitted that the duties of a judicial administrator and an agent, are
in some respects, identical, the provisions on agency, should not apply to a judicial administrator. A judicial
administrator is appointed by the Court. He is not only the representative of said Court, but also the heirs and
creditors of the estate. A judicial administrator before entering into his duties, is required to file a bond. These
circumstances are not true in case of agency. The agent is only answerable to his principal. The protection which
the law gives the principal, in limiting the powers and rights of an agent, stems from the fact that control by the
principal can only be thru agreements, whereas the acts of a judicial administrator are subject to specific provisions
of law and orders of the appointing court.
RULE 84
LUZ CARO vs. HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS
Alfredo Benito, Mario Benito, and Benjamin Benito were the original co-owners of two parcels of land in Sorsogon.
Mario died and his surviving wife, Basilia Lahorra, and his father, Saturnino Benito, were subsequently appointed as
joint administrators of his estate.
Benjamin Benito, executed a deed of absolute sale of his one-third undivided portion over said parcels of land in favor of
Luz Caro, for the sum of P10,000.00. Subsequently, with the consent of Saturnino Benito and Alfredo Benito a
subdivision title was issued to Luz Caro.
Basilia Lahorra Vda. de Benito learned that Luz Caro acquired by purchase from Benjamin Benito the aforesaid one-
third undivided share in each of the two parcels of land. After further verification, she sent a written offer to redeem the
said one-third undivided share. Luz ignored said offer.
Basilia sought to intervene in the civil case for the annulment of sale and mortgage and cancellation of the annotation of
the sale and mortgage involving the same parcels of land, but did not succeed as the principal case was dismissed on a
technicality. She then filed the present case as an independent one and in the trial sought to prove that as a joint
administrator of the estate of Mario Benito, she had not been notified of the sale as required by Article 1620 in
connection with Article 1623 of the New Civil Code.
RULE 84
LUZ CARO vs. HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS
The trial court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that: (a) Basilia, as administratrix of the intestate estate of Mario
Benito, does not have the power to exercise the right of legal redemption, and (b) Benjamin Benito substantially
complied with his obligation of furnishing written notice of the sale of his one-third undivided portion to possible
redemptioners. Basilia’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals found for Basilia and held that the right of the co-owner to redeem in case his share be
sold to a stranger arose after the death of Mario Benito, such right did not form part of the hereditary estate of Mario but
instead was the personal right of the heirs, one of whom is Mario's widow. Thus, it behooved either the vendor,
Benjamin, or his vendee, Luz Caro, to have made a written notice of the intended or consummated sale under Article
1620 of the Civil Code. The motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner was denied.
RULE 84
LUZ CARO vs. HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS
Whether the administrator of Mario’s estate could exercise the right of redemption?
No. Even on the assumption that there still is co-ownership here and that therefore, the right of legal redemption exists,
private respondent as administratrix, has no personality to exercise said right for and in behalf of the intestate estate of
Mario Benito. She is on the same footing as co-administrator Saturnino Benito. Hence, if Saturnino's consent to the sale
of the one-third portion to petitioner cannot bind the intestate estate of Mario Benito on the ground that the right of
redemption was not within the powers of administration, in the same manner, private respondent as co-administrator
has no power exercise the right of redemption — the very power which the Court of Appeals ruled to be not within the
powers of administration.
RULE 84
LUZ CARO vs. HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS
While under Sec. 3, Rule 85, Rules of Court, the administrator has the right to the possession of the real and personal
estate of the deceased, so far as needed for the payment of the expenses of administration, and the administrator may
bring and defend action for the recovery or protection of the property or right of the deceased (Sec. 2, Rule 88), such
right of possession and administration do not include the right of legal redemption of the undivided share sold to a
stranger by one of the co-owners after the death of another, because in such case, the right of legal redemption only
came into existence when the sale to the stranger was perfected and formed no part of the estate of the deceased co-
owner; hence, that right cannot be transmitted to the heir of the deceased co-owner. (Butte vs. Manuel Uy and Sons,
Inc., 4 SCRA 526).
Basilia cannot be considered to have brought this action in her behalf and in behalf of the heirs of Mario Benito because
the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint specifically stated that she brought the action in her capacity as
administratrix of the intestate estate of Mario Benito.
RULE 84
ESTATE OF AMADEO MATUTE OLAVE
vs. HONORABLE MANASES G. REYES
The estate of Amadeo Matute Olave is the owner in fee simple of a parcel of land situated in Tibambam, Sigaboy,
Davao. SAMCO filed a civil case with the CFI of Davao against Carlos V. Matute and Matias S. Matute, as defendants,
in their capacities as co-administrators of the estate of Amadeo Matute Olave, for the collection of an alleged
indebtedness of P19,952.11 and for attorney's fees of P4,988.02.
The parties in the civil case submitted to the respondent court an Amicable Settlement whereby the said property of the
estate was conveyed and ceded to SAMCO as payment of its claim. The said Amicable Settlement was not submitted to
and approved by the then Court of First Instance of Manila nor notice thereof made to the beneficiaries and heirs in said
special proceedings.
The respondent court despite the utter lack of approval of the probate court in Manila, approved the said Amicable
Settlement and gave the same the enforceability of a court decision.
RULE 84
ESTATE OF AMADEO MATUTE OLAVE
vs. HONORABLE MANASES G. REYES
Whether the prior approval of the probate court is needed in case of an amicable settlement for the payment of debt of the estate?
Yes. The claim of private respondent SAMCO being one arising from a contract may be pursued only by filing the same
in the administration proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the settlement of the estate of the deceased
Amadeo Matute Olave; and the claim must be filed within the period prescribed, otherwise, the same shall be deemed
"barred forever." (Section 5, Rule 86, Rules of Court).
The purpose of presentation of claims against decedents of the estate in the probate court is to protect the estate of
deceased persons. That way, the executor or administrator will be able to examine each claim and determine whether it
is a proper one which should be allowed. Further, the primary object of the provisions requiring presentation is to
apprise the administrator and the probate court of the existence of the claim so that a proper and timely arrangement
may be made for its payment in full or by pro-rata portion in the due course of the administration, inasmuch as upon the
death of a person, his entire estate is burdened with the payment of all of his debts and no creditor shall enjoy any
preference or priority; all of them shall share pro-rata in the liquidation of the estate of the deceased.
RULE 84
ESTATE OF AMADEO MATUTE OLAVE
vs. HONORABLE MANASES G. REYES
Section 1, Rule 73 of the Rules of Court, expressly provides that "the court first taking cognizance of the settlement of
the estate of a decedent, shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts." The law is clear that where the
estate of the deceased person is already the subject of a testate or intestate proceeding, the administrator cannot enter
into any transaction involving it without prior approval of the probate court.
THANK
YOU!
