special proceedings revised_sscr col

8/21/2019 Special Proceedings Revised_SSCR COL

1/63

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

DEFINITION:

A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, aright or a particular fact. (Section (c), Rule 1)

The term special proceeding may be dened as an application or proceeding toestablish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact. Usually, in special proceedings,no formal pleadings are required unless the statute epressly so pro!ides and the remedy isgranted generally upon an application or motion. "Natcher vs. CA, G.R. No.133000, October 2, 2001)

A special proceeding, by which a party seeks to establish a status, right, or aparticular fact, has one denite party, who petitions or applies for a declaration of a status,right, or particular fact, but no denite ad!erse party.(Montaer vc CA, G.R. No. 1!"#!$,

%anuar& 20, 200#)

Are the enumerations under Sec. 1 Ru!e "# e$c!usi%e&

The list under #ection $, %ule &' is not e$c!usi%e. Any petition which has for itsmain purpose the establishment of a status, right or a particular fact may be included asspecial proceeding. ('estin, Secial rocee*in+s, A 'oresi+ht to the ar -a/uestion an* Anser Note*, ar uestions, Cases an* *ate* 4as, 2011)

'hat are some o( the cases )hich are considered s*ecia! *roceedin+&

1. Dec!aration o( Nu!!it, o( -arria+e#. Annu!ment o( -arria+e/. Inso!%enc, *roceedin+s0. Proceedin+ (or the issuance o( )rit o( am*aro. Proceedin+s (or the issuance o( )rit o( ha2eas data3. A!ternati%e Dis*ute Reso!ution *roceedin+s". Presum*ti%e death

Can a s*ecia! *roceedin+ 2e 4oined )ith ordinar, ci%i! actions&

(o, by epress pro!ision of #ec. ), %ule ' which requires that the *oinder of causes ofaction must not in!ol!e special ci!il actions or actions go!erned by special rules, "whichincludes special proceedings+

S*eci5c ru!es on sett!ement *re%ai! o%er +enera! ru!es

e read with appro!al the -As use of statutory construction principle of lex specialisderogate generali, leading to the conclusion that the specic pro!isions of #ection ), %ule /0of the %ules of -ourt should pre!ail o!er the general pro!isions of #ection $$, %ule 0 of the

%ules of -ourt1 the settlement of the estate of deceased persons "where claims against thedeceased should be led+ is primarily go!erned by the rules on special proceedings, whilethe rules pro!ided for ordinary claims, including #ection $$, %ule 0 of the %ules of -ourt,merely apply suppletorily. (Metroolitan an5 6 7rust Co/an& v. AbsoluteMana+e/ent Cororation, G.R. No. 1!0"#8. %anuar& #, 2013)

0.1. SETTLE-ENT OF ESTATE OF DECEASED PERSONS 6EN7E AND PROCESS

A special proceeding for the settlement of an estate is led and intended to settlethe entireestate of the deceased is ob!ious and elementary ( 9*a. :e Re&es vs. CA, G.R.No. 4;"!02! %anuar& 2!, 1#8#+.

Pro2ate o( the )i!! ta8es *recedence o%er intestate *roceedin+s: E9ect i( *ro2ateo( the )i!! is disa**ro%ed:

2f in the course of intestate proceedings pending before a court of rst instance it isfound it that the decedent had left a last will, proceedings for the probate of the lattershould replace the intestate proceedings e!en if at that stage an administrator had alreadybeen appointed, the latter being required to render nal account and turn o!er the estate inhis possession to the eecutor subsequently appointed but this is without pre*udice to the

$
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/january2013/170498.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/january2013/170498.pdf


2/63

fact that should the alleged last will be re*ected or is disappro!ed, the proceeding shallcontinue as intestacy. (riarte vs C'< O= Ne+ros, G.R. Nos. 4;21#38;3# Ma& 2#, 1#!0)

Inso!%enc, *roceedin+s and sett!ement are actions in rem:

2nsol!ency proceedings end settlement of a decedents estate is both proceedings in

rem which are binding the whole world. -onsequently, a liquidation of similar import or otherequi!alent general liquidation must also necessarily be a proceeding in rem so that allinterested persons whether known to the parties or not may be bound by such proceeding.(hiliine Savin+s an5 vs 4antin, G.R. No. 4;33#2#. Sete/ber 2, 1#83.)

0.1. 1. 7RISDICTION O6ER SETTLE-ENT OF T;E ESTATE.

The Re+iona! Tria! Courthas *urisdiction o!er proceedings for the settlement of theestate of a deceased person "probate proceedings+ where the +ross %a!ue o( the estatee$ceeds P/83$ March $,1##8)

0.1. /. E=TENT OF 7RISDICTION OF PRO>ATE CO7RT

Co%era+e on the e$tent o( the *o)er o( the *ro2ate court: Issue o( o)nershi* notinc!uded:

The probate *urisdiction of the former court of rst instance or the present regionaltrial court relates only to matters ha!ing to do with the settlement of the estate and probate

'


3/63

of wills of deceased persons, and the appointment and remo!al of administrators, eecutors,guardians and trustees and does not etend the *urisdiction of a probate court to thedetermination of questions of ownership that arise during the proceeding. The partiesconcerned may choose to bring a separate action as a matter of con!enience in thepreparation or presentation of e!idence. (Ra/os vs CA, G.R. No. "2108 :ece/ber 2#,1#8#)

urisdiction o( *ro2ate court to determine )hether *ro*ert, 2e!on+s to con4u+a!*artnershi* or e$c!usi%e o)nershi* o( a *art,

2n the case now before us, the matter in contro!ersy is the question of ownership ofcertain of the properties in!ol!ed ; whether they belong to the con*ugal partnership or tothe husband eclusi!ely. This is a matter properly within the *urisdiction of the probate courtwhich necessarily has to liquidate the con*ugal partnership in order to determine the estateof the decedent which is to be distributed among his heirs who are all parties to theproceedings. (4eo C. Ro/ero an* :avi* A/an*o C. Ro/ero vs. ?on. Court o=

Aeals, Aurora C. Ro/ero an* 9ittorio C. Ro/ero, G.R. No. 188#21, Aril 18,2012)

Pro2ate court has a s*ecia! and !imited 4urisdiction:

2t must be emphasi5ed that the trial court, sitting, as a probate court, has limitedand special *urisdiction and cannot hear and dispose of collateral matters and issues whichmay be properly threshed out only in an ordinary ci!il action. (9*a. :e Manalo vs. CA,G.R. No. 12#2"2. %anuar& 1>, 2001)

The authority of the %egional Trial -ourt, sitting, albeit with limited *urisdiction, as aprobate court o!er the estate of deceased indi!idual, is not a triecti!e, cannot be treated with indi>erence norshould it be ignored with impunity by the !ery parties in!oking its authority. (Ro/ero vsCA, G.R. No. 188#21, Aril 18, 2012)

Issues that ma, 2e reso!%ed 2, the *ro2ate court:

2n testament to this, it has been held that it is within the *urisdiction of the probatecourt to ?1@appro!e the sale of properties of a deceased person by his prospecti!e heirsbefore nal ad*udication1 ?#@ to determine who are the heirs of the decedent1 ?/@ therecognition of a natural child1 ?0@the status of a woman claiming to be the legal wife of thedecedent1 the legality of disinheritance of an heir by the testator1 and ?@to pass upon the!alidity of a wai!er of hereditary rights. (Ro/ero vs CA, G.R. No. 188#21, Aril 18,2012)

Determination o( heir an issue reso!%a2!e 2, *ro2ate court

hile the foregoing allegations, if admitted to be true, would consequently warrant

the reliefs sought for in the said complaint, the rule that the determination of a decedentslawful heirs should be made in the corresponding special proceeding precludes the %T-, inan ordinary action for cancellation of title and recon!eyance, from granting the same. 2n thecase of ?eirs of Teolo @abatan !. -A, the -ourt, citing se!eral other precedents, held thatthe determination of who are the decedents lawful heirs must be made in the proper specialproceeding for such purpose, and not in an ordinary suit for reco!ery of ownership andorpossession, as in this caseB

uris*rudence dictates that the determination o( )ho are the !e+a! heirs o( thedeceased must 2e made in the *ro*er s*ecia! *roceedin+s in court and not in anordinar, suit (or reco%er, o( o)nershi* and *ossession o( *ro*ert, . This must takeprecedence o!er the action for reco!ery of possession and ownership. The -ourt hasconsistently ruled that the trial court cannot make a declaration of heirship in the ci!il actionfor the reason that such a declaration can only be made in a special proceeding. Under#ection :, %ule $ of the $CC& %e!ised %ules of -ourt, a ci!il action is dened as one by whicha party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the pre!ention orredress of a wrong while a special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks toestablish a status, a right, or a particular fact. 2t is then decisi!ely clear that the declarationof heirship can be made only in a special proceeding inasmuch as the petitioners here areseeking the establishment of a status or right.(?eirs o= Ma+*aleno @on vs. Gau*ioso

:


4/63

onteras Rica=orte a.5.a. Gau*ioso -. @on,B an* 7he Re+ister o= :ee*s o= 7ole*oCit&., G.R. No. 1#8>80, %ul& 8, 2013)

Nature o( the determination o( issue o( o)nershi* in *ro2ate not conc!usi%emere!, *ro%isiona!:

The probate court may pass upon the title thereto but such determination is notconclusi!e and is sub*ect to the nal decision in a separate action regarding ownershipwhich may be instituted by the parties. (Re&es vs Mosue*a, G.R. No. 4;"$2>2 %ul& 23,1##0)

The *urisprudence and rule are both to the e>ect that the probate court 7may7pro!isionally pass upon the question of eclusion, not 7should7. The ob!ious reason is theprobate court=s limited *urisdiction and the principle that questions of title or ownership,which result to inclusion in or eclusion from the in!entory of the property, can only besettled in a separate action. (io aretto vs. Aa, G.R. No. 4;>2"31;33 Au+ust 31,1#8")

2t cannot but be conceded that the limited *urisdiction of a probate court prohibits itfrom determining rights to property left by a decedent which depends on the contract(Goo*in v. Cassel/an 200 N.D. #", $1 N.:. $"3).

?owe!er, actions of the probate court, in the case at bar, do not refer to thead*udication of rights under the contract entered into by the deceased during his lifetime. 2tis to be noted that the dealings of the respondent with the court arose out of the latter=s bidto sell property under its authority to sell, mortgage or otherwise encumber property of theestate to pay or settle against the estate (Rule 8#, Revise* Rules o= Court).

7DAE probate court or one in charge of proceedings whether testate or intestatecannot ad*udicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the estate andwhich are claimed to belong to outside parties. All that the said court could do as regardssaid properties is to determine whether they should or should not be included in thein!entory or list of properties to be administered by the administrator. 7( :e 4eon vs. CA,G.R. No. 128!81, Au+ust >, 2002)

Although generally, a probate court may not decide a question of title or ownership,yet if the interested parties are all heirs, or the question is one of collation or ad!ancement,or the parties consent to the assumption of *urisdiction by the probate court and the rightsof third parties are not impaired, then the probate court is competent to decide the questionof ownership. "Ro/ero vs CA, G.R. No. 188#21, Aril 18, 2012)

0.1.0. PO'ERS AND D7TIES OF PRO>ATE CO7RT

2n probate proceedings, the courtB

a+ Frders the probate of the will of the decedent (Sec. 3, Rule 77)b+ @rants letters of administration of the party best entitled thereto or to any qualied

applicant (Sec. !, Rule 7")c+ #uper!ises and control all acts of administration1d+ ?ears and appro!es claims against the estate of the deceased (Sec. ##, Rule $%)e+ Frders payment of lawful debts (Sec. ##, Rule $$)f+ Authori5es sale, mortgage or any encumbrance of real estate (Sec. &, Rule $")g+ Girects the deli!ery of the estate to those entitled thereto (Sec. #, Rule "')h+ 2ssue warrants and processes necessary to compel the attendance of witnesses or

to carry into e>ect their orders and *udgments, and all other powers granted them by law

(Sec. 3, Rule 73)i+ 2f a person dees a probate order, it may issue a warrant for the apprehension and

imprisonment of such person until he performs such order or *udgment, or is released (Sec.3, Rule 73).

Po)er o( su*er%ision and contro! o( the *ro2ate court:

H


5/63

7The court which acquires *urisdiction o!er the properties of a deceased personthrough the ling of the corresponding proceedings, has su*er%ision and contro! o%erthe said *ro*erties, and under the said power, it is its inherent duty to see that thein!entory submitted by the administrator appointed by it contains all the properties, rightsand credits which the law requires the administrator to set out in his in!entory. 2ncompliance with this duty the court has also inherent power to determine what properties,

rights and credits of the deceased should be included in or ecluded from the in!entory. (:e4eon vs CA, G.R. No. 128!81, Au+ust >, 2002)

The court acts as trustee and as such, should *ealously guard the estate and see to itthat it is wisely and economically administered, not dissipated (7i/bol vs. Cano, 111 hil.#23, G.R. No. 4;1$""$, Aril 2#, 1#>1).

#hould an heir or person interested in the properties of a deceased person duly callthe courts attention to the fact that certain properties, rights or credits ha!e been left out inthe in!entory, it is likewise the courts duty to hear the obser!ations, with power todetermine if such obser!ations should be attended to or not and if the properties referred totherein belongprima facieto the intestate, but no such determination is nal and ultimate innature as to the ownership of the said properties. (:e 4eon vs CA, G.R. No. 128!81,

Au+ust >, 2002)

0.#. S7--ARB SETTLE-ENT OF ESTATES

Genera! ru!e:

hen a person dies lea!ing property, the same should be IUG2-2AJJK AG82(2#T9%9G and thecompetent court should appoint a qualied administrator, in the order established in #ection0, %ule &/, in case the deceased left no will, or in case he had left one, should he fail toname an eecutor therein. (ereira vs CA, G.R. No. 4;811"! %une 20, 1#8#)

E$ce*tions:

$. 9tra*udicial settlement "#ection $, %ule &H+'. #ummary settlement of estates of small !alue (Section &, Rule 7)

0.#.1. E=TRA7DICIAL SETTLE-ENT >B AGREE-ENT >ET'EEN ;EIRS ';ENALLO'ED

As a general rule, when a person dies li!ing property in the 4hilippine 2slands, hisproperty should be *udicially administered and the competent court should appoint aqualied administrator, or in case the deceased left no will, or in case he had left one shouldhe fail to name an eecutor therein. This rule, howe!er, is sub*ect to the eceptions, such aswhen the heirs are all of lawful age and there are no debts there is no reason why the estateshould be burdened with the cost and epenses of an administrator. (ereira vs CA, G.R.No. 4;811"! %une 20, 1#8# citin+ tulo vs. asion v*a. :e Garcia, >> hil. 303,G.R. No. "$#0", Sete/ber 30, 1#38)

This court repeatedly held that when a person dies without lea!ing pendingobligations to be paid, his heirs, whether of age or not, are not bound to submit the propertyto a *udicial administration and the appointment of an administrator are super


6/63

?ence, in the eecution of the 9tra6Iudicial #ettlement of the 9state with AbsoluteGeed of #ale in fa!or of spouses Uy, all the heirs of Anunciacion should ha!e participated.-onsidering that 9utropia and Lictoria were admittedly ecluded and that then minors %osaand Gouglas were not properly represented therein, the settlement was not !alid andbinding upon them and consequently, a total nullity.

#ection $, %ule &H of the %ules of -ourt pro!idesB

#9-T2F( $. 9tra*udicial settlement by agreement between heirs. M noetra*udicial settlement shall be binding upon any person who has not participatedtherein or had no notice thereof. "emphasis supplied+. (Neri, at al. vs.?eirs o= ?a*Ei @uso & an* %ulha


7/63

g+ The order of partition or award, if it in!ol!es real estate, recorded in the register ofdeeds1 and

h+ Pond led with the register of deeds in an amount to be ed by the court.

>ond not reuired in case )hen on!, rea! *ro*ert, is in%o!%ed:

(o bond is necessary when only real estate is in!ol!ed because the lien as recordedis suNcient security for any claim which may be led under #ecH, that is, when an heir orother person has been unduly depri!ed of his lawful participation in the estate.

0.#.. RE-EDIES OF AGGRIE6ED PARTIES AFTER E=TRA7DICIAL SETTLE-ENT OFESTATE

>indin+ e9ects o( e$tra4udicia! sett!ement:

An etra*udicial settlement despite the publication shall not be binding on any personwho has not participated therein or who had no notice of death of the decedent. this isbecause the procedure in section $, rule &H is an e parte proceeding (Sa/ilo vs CA,G.R. No. 4;10"!", 'ebruar& 28, 1#$8)

A #U88A%K #9TTJ989(T is likewise (FT P2(G2(@ upon heirs or creditors who werenot parties therein or had no knowledge thereof.

RE-EDIES OF AN E=CL7DED CREDITOR:

$. Proceed A+ainst the >ond (Section , Rule 7+

a+ The unpaid creditor 8AK 4%F-99G against the bond by ling, 2T?2( ' K9A%#, amotion for the payment of his credit in the court wherein such summary settlement was had.

b+ A3T9% the lapse of the ' year period, the creditor may (F JF(@9% proceedagainst the bond, PUT can institute an ordinary action against the distributees within thestatute of limitations.

#. Petition (or Letters o( Administration

/.Action to annu! a deed o( e$tra4udicia! sett!ementon the ground of fraudshould be led within four years from the disco!ery of fraud. (Re+ala*o, 2008)

0.Proceed A+ainst the Rea! Pro*ert,

a+ The lien subsists for ' years.

b+ The '6year lien upon the real property distributed by etra*udicial or summarysettlement shall be annotated on the title issued to the distributees and after ' years will becancelled by the register of deeds without need of court order (4RC Circular 1"3)

@ Ordinar, Ci%i! Action

RE-EDIES OF AN E=CL7DED ;EIR:

$+ Action to compel settlement of estate(Section , Rule 7)'+ Action for rescission on the ground of lesion (*rt. #3$#, par. #, +) 4rescripti!e

period is H years:+ Accion %ei!indicatoriaH+$O years, 2mplied Trust. Annulment on the ground of fraud

'hen does the *rescri*ti%e *eriod o( (our ?0@ ,ears 2e+in to run&

4rescripti!e period is H years. The period of four "H+ years therein prescribed did notbegin to run unti! actua! disco%er, o( the (raud *er*etrated 2, res*ondents, which, itis claimed, took place in $C)0 or $C)&1 and that accordingly, said period had not epiredwhen the present action was commenced on (o!ember H, $C)/. (Gerona vs. :e GuF/an,Gr 4;1#0>0, 1#>")

PERIOD FOR CLAI- OF -INOR OR INCAPACITATED PERSON

&


8/63

2f on the date of the epiration of the period of two "'+ years prescribed in thepreceding section the person authori5ed to le a claim is a minor or mentally incapacitated,or is in prison or outside the 4hilippines, he may present his claim within one "$+ year aftersuch disability is remo!ed. "#ection ), %ule &)+

0./. PROD7CTION AND PRO>ATE OF 'ILL

'hat is *ro2ate o( the )i!!&

A *udicial act whereby an instrument is ad*udged !alid and is ordered to be recorded.2t is the statutory method of establishing the proper eecution of the instrument and gi!ingnotice of its contents. The probate of a will by the court ha!ing *urisdiction thereof isconsidered as conclusi!e as to its due eecution and testamentary capacity of the testator(Merca*o vs. Santos, No. "$>2#, 22 Sete/ber 1#38).

0./.1. NAT7RE OF PRO>ATE PROCEEDING:

The probate of the will is mandatory "Guevara vs. Guevara, !" hil. "!# an* #8hil. 2"# alu&ot vs. anio, 4;"2088, Ma& !, 1#!>, !1 SCRA 8>+.

Conso!idation o( the intestate *roceedin+s )ith testate *roceedin+s:

2t is anomalous that the estate of a person who died testateshould be settled in anintestate proceeding. Therefore, the intestate case should be consolidated with the testateproceeding and the *udge assigned to the testate proceeding should continue hearing thetwo cases. (Roberts vs. 4eoni*as, G.R. No. 4;$$$0# Aril 2!, 1#8")

Reason )h, the )i!! shou!d 2e *ro2ated:

The law en*oins the probate of the ill and public policy requires it, because unlessthe ill is probated and notice thereof gi!en to the whole world

, the right of a person todispose of his property by ill may be rendered nugatory. (Maninan+ vs. CA, G.R. No. 4;$!8"8 %une 1#, 1#82)

E$ce*tions:

a+ The heirs di!ide the estate according to the will1 pay the creditors accordingly sothat none of them may be pre*udiced. Py permitting partition and di!ision of estate without

*udicial proceedings would enable the heirs to take o!er their respecti!e shares in theinheritance without delay and thereby a!oid epenses and waste (McMic5in+ v. S&Co/bien+, 21 hil. 21#)

b+ (o will shall pass either real or personal property unless it is pro!ed or allowed incourt. e nd, that the document may be sustained on the basis of Article $O)0 which readsas follows- *rt. #'!%. f te testator sould ma/e a partition of is properties by an act intervivos, or by win, suc partition sall stand in so far as it does not prejudice te legitime of

te forced eirs .(Man+;O& vs CA, G.R. No. 4;2!"21 Sete/ber 12, 1#8>)

Issues that ma, 2e reso!%ed in *ro2ate *roceedin+s:

As a general rule, courts in probate proceedings are limited only to passing upon theetrinsic !alidity of the will sought to be probated, the due eecution thereof, the testator=stestamentary capacity and the compliance with the requisites or solemnities prescribes bylaw. The question of the intrinsic !alidity of a will normally comes only after the court hasdeclared that the will has been duly authenticated. (Nu=able vs Nu=able, G.R. No.12>#$0 %ul& 2, 1###)

2n a special proceeding for the probate of a will, the issue by and large is restricted tothe etrinsic !alidity of the will, i.e., whether the testator, being of sound mind, freely

eecuted the will in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law. (Rules o= Court,Rule !$, Section 1 Rule !>, Section #.)

Pro2ate court cannot *ass u*on issue o( o)nershi*: E$ce*tions:

As a rule, the question of ownership is an etraneous matter which the 4robate -ourtcannot resol!e with nality. Thus, for the purpose of determining whether a certain propertyshould or should not be included in the in!entory of estate properties, the 4robate -ourt

/


9/63

may pass upon the title thereto, but such determination is pro!isional, not conclusi!e, and issub*ect to the nal decision in a separate action to resol!e title. (astor %r. vs. CA, G.R.No. 4;$>3"0 %une 2", 1#83)

E=CEPTION ';EN PRO>ATE CO7RT -AB PASS 7PON INTRINSIC 6ALIDITB:

1@ Nu!! and %oid )i!!:

2n +uguid v. +uguid "$& #-%A HHC+ cited by the trial court, the testator instituted thepetitioner as uni!ersal heir and completely preterited her sur!i!ing forced heirs. A will of thisnature, no matter how !alid it may appear etrinsically, would be null and !oid and separateor latter proceedings to determine the intrinsic !alidity of the testamentary pro!isions wouldbe super2#$2 October #, 1#8$)

#@ Gra%e a2use o( discretion 2, the *ro2ate court: Remed, o( certiorari a%ai!a2!e:

An act done by a 4robate -ourt in ecess of its *urisdiction may be correctedby ertiorari. And e!en assuming the eistence of the remedy of appeal, we harken to therule that in the broader interests of *ustice, a petition for certiorari may be entertained,particularly where appeal would not a>ord speedy and adequate relief. (Maninan+ vs CA,G.R. No. 4;$!8"8 %une 1#, 1#82)Doctrine o( esto**e!s not a**!ica2!e in *ro2ate *roceedin+s:

Goctrine of estoppel is not applicable in probate proceedings as the presentation andprobate of a will are requirements of public policy, being primarily designed to protect thetestator=s, epressed wishes, which are entitled to respect as a consequence of thedecedent=s ownership and right of disposition within legal limits. 2t would be a nonse0uiturto allow public policy to be e!aded on the pretet of estoppel.('ernan*eF, -t Al.vs. :i/a+iba, 4;23>38, October 12, 1#>!)

0./.#. ';O -AB PETITION FOR PRO>ATE PERSONS ENTITLED TO NOTICE

The following may petition for the allowance of a willB

a+ Testator himself during his lifetimeb+ ?eir "person interested in the estate+c+ 9ecutord+ -reditore+ Ge!isee or legatee

Person )ho )i!! inter%ene in *ro2ate *roceedin+s must ha%e an interest:

2t is a well6settled rule that in order that a person may be allowed to inter!ene in aprobate proceeding he must ha!e an interest in the estate, or in the will, or in the propertyto be a>ected by it either as eecutor or as a claimant of the estate (N+o 7he ?ua vs.Chun+ Hiat ?ua, -t Al., 4;1!0#1, Sete/ber 30, 1#>3@

'ho is an interested *art,&

An 2(T9%9#T9G 4A%TK is one who would be beneted by the estate such as an heir or

one who has a claim against the estate such as a creditor. (Su/ilan+ vs. Ra/a+osa, 21

SCRA 13#8, G.R. No. 4;2313$ :ece/ber 2>, 1#>!)

0.0. ALLO'ANCE OR DISALLO'ANCE OF 'ILL0.0. 1. Contents o( *etition (or a!!o)ance o( )i!!

a+ %ule &0, section ' requires that the petition for allowance of a will must showB 7"a+

thejurisdictionalfacts.7 #uch 7*urisdictional facts7 in probate proceedings, as held by the-ourt in 1ernando vs. risostomo 7 are the death of the decedent, his residence at the timeof his death in the pro!ince where the probate court is sitting, or if he is an inhabitant of aforeign country, his ha!ing left his estate in such pro!ince.7 (Cuenco vs CA, G.R. No. 4;2"!"2 October 2>, 1#!3)

b+ (ames, ages and residences of heirs, legatees, and de!isees1

C


10/63

c+ 4robable !alue and character of the property of the estate1

d+ (ame of person for whom letters are prayed1

e+ (ame of person ha!ing custody of will, if it has not yet been deli!ered to the court.(#1"", %anuar& 2>, 2011)

0.0. #. GRO7NDS FOR DISALLO'ING A 'ILL:'hat are the +rounds (or the disa!!o)ance o( a )i!!& Nature& Issues to 2e reso!%edin the *ro2ate o( a ho!o+ra*hic )i!!:

a+ The will was not eecuted and attested as required by law1b+ The testator was insane or otherwise mentally incapable of making a will at the time

of its eecution1c+ The will was eecuted through force or under duress or the in


11/63

Dut, o( the court in case a )i!! is *resented (or re*ro2ate:

The rule that the court ha!ing *urisdiction o!er the reprobate of a will shall 7causenotice thereof to be gi!en as in case of an original will presented for allowance7 "%e!ised%ules of -ourt, %ule '&, #ection '+ means that with regard to notices, the will probated

abroad should be treated as if it were an 7original will7 or a will that is presented for probatefor the rst time. (:e ereF vs. 7olete, G.R. No. !>!1" %une 2, 1##")

'here to ma8e the administration o( *ro*ert,&

hen a person dies intestate owning property in the country of his domicile as wellas in a foreign country, administration is had in both countries. (.-. %ohannes vs. ?arve&,G.R. No. 18>00, March #, 1#22)

Princi*a!domici!iar, administration %s. Anci!!ar, administration:

That which is granted in the *urisdiction of decedent=s last domicile is termed the*rinci*a! domici!iar, administration, while any other administration is termed theanci!!ar, administration. The ancillary administration is proper, whene!er a person dies,lea!ing in a country other than that of his last domicile, property to be administered in thenature of assets of the deceased liable for his indi!idual debts or to be distributed among hisheirs.7 (7estate -state o= ense in!ol!ing moral turpitude. "#ection $,

%ule &/+ !.+ Antagonistic 2nterest. 7"2+n this *urisdiction, one is considered to be

unsuitable for appointment as administrator when he has ad!erse interest of some kind ofhostility to those immediately interested in the estate.7. (Me*ina vs. CA, G.R. No. 4;3"!>0, Sete/ber 28, 1#!3)

$$


12/63

Determination o( e$ecutor or administrator discretionar, u*on the court:

The %ules of -ourt gi!es the lower court the duty and discretion to determinewhether in its opinion an indi!idual is unt to ser!e as an eecutor. The suNciency of anyground for remo!al should thus be determined by the said court, whose sensibilities are, inthe rst place, a>ected by any act or omission on the part of the administrator not

conformable to or in disregard of the rules of orders of the court. (Matute vs. Court O=Aeals, No. 4; 2>!$1, %anuar& 31, 1#>#, 2> SCRA !>8, !8")

Choice o( e$ecutor *rero+ati%e o( the testator:

The choice o( his e$ecutor is a *recious *rero+ati%e o( a testator anecessar, concomitant o( his ri+ht to dis*ose o( his *ro*ert, in the manner he)ishes.The curtailment of this right may be considered as a curtailment of the right todispose and as the rights granted by will take e>ect from the time of death, themanagement of his estate by the administrator of his choice should be made as soon aspracticable, when no reasonable ob*ection to his assumption of the trust can be interposedany longer. (R vs. Marcos


13/63

2n the appointment of the administrator of the estate of a deceased person, theprincipal consideration reckoned with is the interest in said estate of the one to be appointedas administrator. The under!,in+ assum*tion 2ehind this ru!e is that those )ho )i!!rea* the 2ene5t o( a )ise s*eed, economica! administration o( the estate or onthe other hand su9er the conseuences o( )aste im*ro%idence ormismana+ement ha%e the hi+hest interest and most inuentia! moti%e to

administer the estate correct!,.

(GonFales vs. A+uinal*o, G.R. No. !"!>#Sete/ber 28, 1##0)

'hen can the court a**oint an administrator i( the e$ecutor is disua!i5edre(used to assume the trust etc.&

The rule is that if no eecutor is named in the will, or the named eecutor oreecutors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to gi!e bond, or a person dies intestate,the court must appoint an administrator of the estate of the deceased who shall act asrepresentati!e not only of the court appointing him but also of the heirs and the creditors ofthe estate. 2n the eercise of its discretion, theprobate court may appoint one, two or morecoadministrators to ave te bene4t of teir judgment and peraps at all times to avedi5erent interests represented. (GonFales vs. A+uinal*o, G.R. No. !"!># Sete/ber

28, 1##0)

A**ointment o( coadministrators:

here the estate is large, to appoint two or more administrators of such estate toha!e di>erent interests represented and satised, and furthermore, to ha!e suchrepresentati!es work in harmony for the best interests of such estate. (Matute vs. CA,G.R. No. 2>!$1, %anuar& 31, 1#>#)

A**ointment o( coadministrator is a!!o)ed 2ut as an e$ce*tion

2t is to this requirement of obser!ation of the order of preference in the appointmentof administrator of a decedents estate, that the appointment of co6administrators has been

allowed, but as an eception. e again refer to #ection 0"a+ of %ule &/ of the %ules of -ourtwhich specically states that letters of administration may be issued to both the sur!i!ingspouse and the net of kin. 2n addition and impliedly, we can refer to #ection ' of %ule /' ofthe %ules of -ourt which say that DwEhen an eecutor or administrator dies, resigns, oris remo!ed, the remaining eecutor or administrator may administer the trust alone, .

2n a number of cases, we ha!e sanctioned the appointment of more than oneadministrator for the benet of the estate and those interested therein. e recogni5ed thatthe appointment of administrator of the estate of a decedent or the determination of apersons suitability for the oNce of *udicial administrator rests, to a great etent, in thesound *udgment of the court eercising the power of appointment.

Under certain circumstances and for !arious reasons well6settled in 4hilippine andAmerican *urisprudence, we ha!e upheld the appointment of co6administratorsB "$+ to ha!e

the benets of their *udgment and perhaps at all times to ha!e di>erent interestsrepresented1 "'+ where *ustice and equity demand that opposing parties or factions berepresented in the management of the estate of the deceased1 ":+ where the estate is largeor, from any cause, an intricate and perpleing one to settle1"H+ to ha!e all interestedpersons satised and the representati!es to work in harmony for the best interests of theestate1 and when a person entitled to the administration of an estate desires to ha!eanother competent person associated with him in the oNce. (-/ilio A.M. Sunta&


14/63

An interested *art,has been dened in this connection as one who would bebeneted by the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such asa creditor "


15/63

"$+ make and return a true in!entory of the goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estateof the deceased which come to his possession or knowledge1

"'+ truly account for such as recei!ed by him when required by the court1 and":+ deli!er the same to the person appointed as eecutor or regular administrator, or

to such other person as may be authori5ed to recei!e them.

Lerily, theadministration bond is for the benet of the creditors and the heirs, as itcompels the administrator, whether regular or special, to perform the trust reposed in, anddischarge the obligations incumbent upon, him, therefore, it should not be considered aspart of the necessary epenses chargeable against the estate, not being included among theacts constituting the care, management, and settlement of the estate. (Oca/o vs.Oca/o, G.R. No. 18!8!#, %ul& $, 2010)

0.. . APPOINT-ENT OF SPECIAL AD-INISTRATOR:Order o( *re(erence in the a**ointment o( re+u!ar administrator ma, 2econsidered in the a**ointment o( a s*ecia! administrator:

(othing is wrong for the *udge to consider the order of preference in the appointmentof a regular administrator in appointing a special administrator. After all, the considerationthat o!errides all others in this respect is the benecial interest of the appointee in theestate of the decedent('ule vs. CA, G.R. No. 4;"0$02 Nove/ber 2#, 1#!>)

Princi*a! o24ect o( the a**ointment o( a s*ecia! administrator:

The principal ob*ect of the appointment of a temporary administrator is to preser!ethe estate until it can pass to the hands of a person fully authori5ed to administer it for thebenet of creditors and heirs, pursuant to #ection ' of %ule /O of the %ules of -ourt.(Oca/o vs. Oca/o, G.R. No. 18!8!#, %ul& $, 2010)

Nature o( the dut, o( the s*ecia! administrators:

The #pecial Administrators that while they may ha!e respecti!e interests to protect,they are oNcers of the -ourt sub*ect to the super!ision and control of the 4robate -ourt andare epected to work for the best interests of the entire estate, its smooth administration,and its earliest settlement. (Corona vs. CA, G.R. No. 4;$#821 Au+ust 30, 1#82)

'hen can a s*ecia! administrator 2e a**ointed&

The specic and limited powers of special administrators and that their appointmentmerely temporary and subsists only until a regular administrator is duly appointed "since%ule /O, section $ pro!ides for the appointment of a special administrator as a caretakeronly 7)hen there is de!a, in +rantin+ !etters testamentar, or o( administration 2,an, cause7+ (Me*ina vs. e*a GonFales, G.R. No. 4;3"!>0 Sete/ber 28, 1#!3)

A**ointment o( a s*ecia! administrator discretionar,:

The discretion to appoint a special administrator or not lies in the probate court butthat is no authority for the *udge to become partial, or to make his personal likes and dislikespre!ail o!er, or his passions to rule, his *udgment but such discretion must be based onreason, equity, *ustice and legal principle. There is no reason why the same fundamental andlegal principles go!erning the choice of a regular administrator should not be taken intoaccount in the appointment of a special administrator. ('ule vs. CA, G.R. No. 4;"0$02Nove/ber 2#, 1#!>)

Choice o( the e$ecutri$ o( s*ecia! administrator deser%es hi+hest consideration:

The eecutri=s choice of #pecial Administrator, considering her own inability to ser!eand the wide latitude of discretion gi!en her by the testatri in her ill "Anne 7A6$7+, is

entitled to the highest consideration.. (Corona vs CA, G.R. No. 4;$#821 Au+ust 30,1#82)

0.. 3. GRO7NDS FOR RE-O6AL OF AD-INISTRATOR:

$.+ neglects to render his account and settle the estate according to law, or'+ neglects to perform an order or *udgment of the court, or

$)


16/63

:.+ neglect to perfom a duty epressly pro!ided by these rules, orH.+ absconds, or becomes insane, or otherwise incapable or unsuitable to discharge

the trust, the court may remo!e him, or, in its discretion, may permit him to resign. "#ection', %ule /'+

Other +rounds (or the remo%a! o( the administrator discretionar, u*on the court:

The probate court may appoint or remo!e special administrators based on groundsother than those enumerated in the %ules at its discretion, such that the need to rst passupon and resol!e the issues of tness or untness and the application of the order ofpreference under #ection 0 of %ule &/, as would be proper in the case of a regularadministrator, do not obtain. (Oca/o vs. Oca/o, G.R. No. 18!8!#, %ul& $, 2010)

Nature o( the *o)ers o( administrator:

Administrators ha!e such an interest in the eecution of their trust as to entitle themto protection from remo!al without *ust cause. ?ence, #ection ' of %ule /' of the %ules of-ourt pro!ides the legal and specic causes authori5ing the court to remo!e anadministrator. (GonFales vs. A+uinal*o, G.R. No. !"!># Sete/ber 28, 1##0)

Tria! courts action o( remo%in+ administrator deser%es res*ect 2, the a**e!!atecourt e$ce*t )hen there is an error or +ra%e a2use o( discretion:

The suNciency of any ground for remo!al should thus be determined by said court,whose sensibilities are, in rst place, a>ected by any act or omission on the part of theadministrator not conformable to or in disregard of the rules or the orders of the court.-onsequently, appellate tribunals are disinclined to interfere with the action taken by aprobate court in the matter of the remo!al of an eecutor or administrator unless positiveerror or gross abuse of discretion is sown. (Matute vs. CA, No. 4; 2>!$1, %anuar& 31,1#>#, 2> Scra !>8, !8")

Grounds (or remo%a! o( administrator must 2e *ro%ed 2, e%idence:

hile it is conceded that the court is in!ested with ample discretion in the remo!al ofan administrator, it howe!er must ha!e some fact legally before it in order to *ustify aremo!al. There must be e!idence of an act or omission on the part of the administrator notconformable to or in disregard of the rules or the orders of the court, which it deemssuNcient or substantial to warrant the remo!al of the administrator. (GonFales vs.

A+uinal*o, G.R. No. !"!># Sete/ber 28, 1##0)

E9ects o( re%ocation o( !etters testamentar, or administration:

2t is elementary that the e>ect of re!ocation of letters testamentary or ofadministration is to terminate the authority of the eecutor or administrator, but the acts ofthe eecutor or administrator, done in good faith prior to the re!ocation of the letters, will beprotected, and a similar protection will be etended to rights acquired under a pre!ious

grant of administration. (9*a. :e acalin+ vs. 4a+una, G.R. No. 4;2>>#" :ece/ber18, 1#!3)

Order o( a**ointment o( s*ecia! administrator an inter!ocutor, order su24ect tocertiorari:

The appointment or remo!al of special administrators, being discretionary, is thusinterlocutory and may be assailed through a petition for certiorariunder %ule 0) of the %ulesof -ourt. (Oca/o vs. Oca/o, G.R. No. 18!8!#, %ul& $, 2010)

0.3. CLAI-S AGAINST T;E ESTATE

Upon the death of a person, all his property is burdened with all his debts, his death

creating and equitable lien thereon for the benet of the creditors. #uch lien continues untilall debts are etinguished either by the payment, prescription, or satisfaction in one of themodes recogni5ed by law. (Sui 4ion+ vs. 7a&san, G.R. No. 4;"!!!, Nove/ber 11,1#08 )

0.3.1. TI-E 'IT;IN ';IC; CLAI-S S;ALL >E FILED E=CEPTIONS

Statute o( nonc!aims:

$0


17/63

#ection ', %ule /0, which pro!idesB

#ec. '. 6ime witin wic claims sall be 4led. ; 2n the notice pro!ided in thepreceding section, the court shall state the time for the ling of claims against the estate,which sha!! not 2e more than t)e!%e ?1#@ nor !ess than si$ ?3@ months a(ter the

date o( the 5rst *u2!ication o( the notice. ?owe!er, at anytime before an order ofdistribution is entered, on application of a creditor who has failed to le his claim within thetime pre!iously limited, the court may, for cause shown and on such terms as are equitable,allow such claim to be led within a time not eceeding one "$+ months.

Pur*ose o( the 5$in+ o( the *eriod o( c!aims:

The purpose of the law, in ing a period within which claims against an estate mustbe presented, is to insure a speedy settlement of the a>airs of the deceased person and theearly deli!ery of the property to the person entitled to the same. (?eirs o= iFarro vs.Consolacion, G.R. No. 4;$12!8 Ma& #, 1#88)

Pur*ose o( the *resentation o( the c!aims a+ainst the estate:

The purpose of presentation of claims against decedents of the estate in the probatecourt is to protect the estate of deceased persons to enable the eecutor or administratorwill be able to eamine each claim and determine whether it is a proper one which should beallowed. 3urther, the primary ob*ect of the pro!isions requiring presentation is to apprise theadministrator and the probate court of the eistence of the claim so that a proper and timelyarrangement may be made for its payment in full or by pro6rata portion in the due course ofthe administration. (-state o= Olave vs. Re&es, G.R. No. 4;2#"0! %ul& 2#, 1#83)

0.3.#.CLAI-S AGAINST T;E ESTATE:

The following are money claims which can be charged against the estateB

$. All claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract, epress orimplied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent1

'. All claims for funeral epenses1:. All claims for epenses for the last sickness of the decedent1 andH. Iudgment for money against the decedent. "Section !, Rule $%+

'hat does the )ord c!aimsH connotes&

The word 7claims7 as used in statutes requiring the presentation of claims against adecedent=s estate is generally construed to mean debts or demands of a pecuniary naturewhich could ha!e been enforced against the deceased in his lifetime and could ha!e beenreduced to simple money *udgments1 and among these are those founded upon contract.(GutierreF vs. aretto;:atu, G.R. No. 4;1!1!$, %ul& 31, 1#>2)

Actions that does not sur%i%es the death o( the *art,: Rationa!e:

This situation brings to the fore a consideration of #ection '$, %ule : of the %ules of-ourt, which readsB

#9-. '$. 2ere claim does not survive. ; hen the action is for reco!ery of money,debt or interest thereon, and the defendant dies before nal *udgment in the -ourt of 3irst2nstance, it shall be dismissed to be prosecuted in the manner especially pro!ided in theserules. ( Section 21, Rule 3 o= the Rules o= Court)

The 4hilosophy behind the rule which pro!ides for the dismissal of the ci!il case isthat, upon the death of defendant, all money claims should be led in the testate orinterstate proceedings 7to a!oid useless duplicity of procedure.7 (, Ma& 23, 1#>!)

-one, c!aims arisin+ (rom contract a+ainst the estate is an action that sur%i%es:

@enerally, death of either the creditor or the debtor does not etinguish theobligation and only obligations that are personal or are identied with the personsthemsel!es are etinguished by death. #ection ) of %ule /0 of the %ules of -ourt epresslyallows the prosecution of money claims arising from a contract against the estate of a

$&


18/63

deceased debtor as these claims are not actually etinguished. (Stron+hol*


19/63

heirs and other persons interested in the estate will ha!e a right to inquire into the necessityfor making the contract and the !alue of the work performed by the attorney.7 (Ra/os vs.i*in, G.R. No. 4;$3>$0 Ma& 28, 1#88)

Causa! re!ation 2et)een the monetar, c!aims and the acts o( administration:

The rule is that where the monetary claim against the administrator has a relation tohis acts of administration in the ordinary course thereof, such claims can be presented forpayment with the court where a special proceeding for the settlement of the estate ispending, although said claims were not incurred by the deceased during his lifetime andcollectible after his death. (uirino vs. Gorose, G.R. No. 4;$8!#!, %anuar& 31, 1#8#)

0.3.0. PAB-ENT OF DE>TS

Procedure (or the *a,ment o( de2ts:

The proper procedure allowed by the %ules of -ourt is for the court to order the saleof personal estate or the sale of mortgaged of real property of the deceased and all debts orepenses of administration should be paid out of the proceeds of the sale or mortgage. Theorder for the sale or mortgage should be issued upon motion of the administrator and withthe written notice to all the heirs, legatees and de!isees residing in the 4hilippines,according to %ule /C, section :, and %ule CO, section '. "Al*a/iF vs. C'0, :ece/ber 2#, 1#"#+

Action a+ainst a distri2utee o( the de2tors assets 2, the creditor 2ased onmonetar, c!aims:

The only instance wherein a creditor can le an action against a distributee of thedebtor=s asset is under #ection ), %ule // of the %ules of -ourt. The contingent claims mustrst ha!e been established and allowed in the probate court before the creditors can le anaction directly, against the distributes, such is not the situation in the case at bar. (:eautista vs. :e GuF/an, G.R. No. 4;282#8 Nove/ber 2$, 1#83)

Instances )hen the *ro2ate court can issue )rit o( e$ecution: E$c!usi%e:

The circumstances that the %ules of -ourt epressly species that the probate courtmay issue eecution

"$+ to satisfy "debts of the estate out of+ the contributi!e shares of de!isees, legateesand heirs in possession of the decedent=s assets "#ec. 0. %ule //+,

"'+ to enforce payment of the epenses of partition "#ec. :, %ule CO+, and":+ to satisfy the costs when a person is cited for eamination in probate proceedings

"#ec. $:, %ule $H'+

Under the rule of inclusion unius est eclusion alterius, abo!e cited instances are theonly circumstances when probate court can issue a writ of eecution. (astor, %r. vs. CA,

G.R. No. 4;$>3"0 %une 2", 1#83)

0.". ACTIONS >B AND AGAINST E=EC7TORS AND AD-INISTRATORS0.".1. ACTIONS T;AT -AB >E >RO7G;T AGAINST E=EC7TORS ANDAD-INISTRATORS

The only actions that may be instituted against the eecutor or administratorindependently of the testate or intestate proceedings areB

$+ %eco!ery of real or personal property or any interest therein from the estate1'+ 9nforcement of a lien thereon1:+ Action to reco!er damages for an in*ury to person or property, real or personal1 andH+ Action to reco!er damages for breach of contract entered into by the decedent, but

committed by the administrator, which is personal to him ?GutierreF vs. arreto;:atu,G.R. No. 4;1!1!$, %ul& 31, 1#>2).

C!aim 2, the administrator a+ainst third *erson is 2, )a, o( an action not 2,motion:

7hen the demand is in fa!or of the administrator and the party against whom it isenforced is a third party, not under the court=s *urisdiction, the demand cannot be by mere

$C


20/63

motion by the administrator, but by an independent action against the third person.7 8attersa>ecting property under *udicial administration may not be taken cogni5ance of by the courtin the course of intestate proceedings, if the 7interests of tird persons are prejudiced7.(:ela CruF vs. Ca/on, G.R. No. 4;2103", Aril 30, 1#>>)

'hen does the !ia2i!it, o( an administrator (or ta$ *a,ment 2e+in&

That 7the assessment is deemed made when the notice to this e>ect is released,mailed or sent to the tapayer for the purpose of gi!ing e>ect to said assessment.7 2tappearing that the person liable for the payment of the ta, in this case the administrator,did not recei!e the assessment, the assessment could not become nal and eecutory. (Rvs. :ela Ra/a, G.R. No. 4;21108, Nove/ber 2#, 1#>>)

-onetar, c!aims a+ainst the estate&

2t is apparent that actions for damages caused by tortious conduct of a defendantsur!i!e the death of the latter. Under Rule 8!, section $, the actions that are abated bydeath areB

"$+ claims for funeral epenses and those for the last sickness of the decedent1"'+ *udgments for money1 and":+ 7all claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract express or

implied7.

2t is not enough that the claim against the deceased party be for money, but it mustarise from 7contract epress or implied7, and these words "also used by the %ules inconnection with attachments and deri!ed from the common law+ were construed to includeall purely personal obligations other than those which ha!e their source in delict or tort.(A+uas v.s 4le/os,

G.R. No. 4;1810!, Au+ust 30, 1#>2)

Action that sur%i%e a+ainst the e$ecutor or administrator:

Rule 88, section 1, enumerates actions that sur!i!e against a decedent=s eecutorsor administrators, and they areB

"$+ actions to reco!er real and personal property from the estate1"'+ actions to enforce a lien thereon1 and":+ actions to reco!er damages for an in*ury to person or property.

'hen heirs ma, act in *!ace o( the Administrator:

1@ No a**ointed administrator ,et.

#ection ' of %ule /& of the same %ules, which also deals with administrators, statesB#ec. '. =xecutor or administrator may bring or defend actions wic survive.6 3or thereco!ery or protection of the property or rights of the deceased, an eecutor or

administrator may bring or defend, in the right of the deceased, actions for causes whichsur!i!e.

hen no administrator has been appointed, as in this case, there is all the morereason to recogni5e the heirs as the proper representati!es of the deceased (Go Chan vs.@oun+, G.R. No. 13188#, March 12, 2001)

9!en if there is an appointed administrator, *urisprudence recogni5es twoeceptions, vi>B

?#@ i( the e$ecutor or administrator is un)i!!in+ or re(uses to 2rin+ suit and

":+ when the administrator is alleged to ha!e participated in the act complained

ofD:$Eand he is made a party defendant. 9!idently, the necessity for the heirs to seek *udicialrelief to reco!er property of the estate is as compelling when there is no appointedadministrator, if not more, as where there is an appointed administrator but he is eitherdisinclined to bring suit or is one of the guilty parties himself.All told, therefore, the rule that the heirs ha!e no legal standing to sue for the reco!ery ofproperty of the estate during the pendency of administration proceedings has threeeceptions, the third being when there is no appointed administrator such as in this case.(Rio=erio vs. CA, G.R. No. 12#008. %anuar& 13, 200" )

'O
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/129008.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jan2004/129008.htm#_ftn31


21/63

0.".#. RE7ISITES >EFORE CREDITOR -AB >RING AN ACTION FOR RECO6ERB OFPROPERTB FRA7D7LENTLB CON6EBED >B T;E DECEASED

$+ There is G932-29(-K of assets in the hands of an eecutor or administrator for the

payment of debts and epenses of administration1'+ The deceased in his lifetime had made or attempted to make a 3%AUGUJ9(T-F(L9KA(-9 of his property or had so con!eyed such property that by law the con!eyancewould be !oid as against his creditors1

:+ The sub*ect of the attempted con!eyance would be liable to ATTA-?89(T in hislifetime1

H+ The eecutor or administrator has shown (F G9#2%9 TF 32J9 the action or failed toinstitute the same within a reasonable time1

)+ J9AL9 is granted by the court to the creditor to le the action10+ A PF(G is led by the creditor1&+ The action by the creditor is in the (A89 of the eecutor or administrator.

(Section 10, Rule 8!)

Po)er o( su*er%ision and contro! o( the *ro2ate court o%er *ro*erties o( thedecedent:

The court which acquires *urisdiction o!er the properties of a deceased personthrough the ling of the corresponding proceedings has super!ision and control o!er theseproperties and in compliance with this duty, the court also has the inherent power todetermine what properties, rights and credits of the deceased the administrator shouldinclude or eclude in the in!entory. (Chua vs. Absolute Mana+e/ent Cor.,

G.R. No.1""881, October 1>, 2003)

Po)er to reco%er *ro*erties a+ainst third *erson 2e!on+s to the administrator notthe court:

The trial court has no authority to decide whether the properties, real or personal,belong to the estate or to the persons eamined. 2f after such eamination there is goodreason to belie!e that the person eamined is keeping properties belonging to the estate,then the administrator should le an ordinary action in court to reco!er the same. (Chuavs. Absolute Mana+e/ent Cor., G.R. No. 1""881, October 1>, 2003)

Issuance o( a )rit o( attachment must 2e (or the *rotection o( the estate not o(the creditor:

Any writ of attachment necessary to secure the *udgment must be related to theprotection of the estate. The writ may not issue if only to protect the personal interests ofthe pri!ate respondent as a creditor of that estate. (Gruenber+ vs. CA, G. R. No. 4;

"$#"8 Sete/ber 10, 1#8$)

0.J. DISTRI>7TION AND PARTITION0.J.1. LI7IDATION

'hat is administration& Pur*ose&

Administrationis for the purpose of liquidation of the estate and distribution of theresidue among the heirs and legatees. And liquidation means the determination of all the

assets of the estate and payment of all the debts and epenses

. (4uFon Suret& vsuebrar, G.R. No. 4;"0$1! %anuar& 31, 1#8")

'hen can distri2ution o( the estate 2e done&

(o distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the obligations abo!e6mentioned has

been made or pro!ided for, unless the distributees, or any of them, gi!e a bond, in a sum tobe ed by the court, conditioned for the payment of said obligations within such time asthe court directs. (-state O= RuiF vs. CA, G.R. No. 118>!1, %anuar& 2#, 1##>)

;o) )i!! the distri2ution o( the estate *ro*erties 2e done&

2n settlement of estate proceedings, the distribution of the estate properties can onlybe madeB

'$


22/63

"$+ after all the debts, funeral charges, epenses of administration, allowance to thewidow, and estate ta ha!e been paid1 or

"'+ before payment of said obligations only if the distributees or any of them gi!es abond in a sum ed by the court conditioned upon the payment of said obligations withinsuch time as the court directs, or when pro!ision is made to meet those obligations.

(Castillo v. Castillo, 12" hil. "8$ J1#>>K)

Estate ta$ must 2e *aid 2e(ore distri2ution o( estate *ro*erties:

The estate ta is one o= those obli+ations that /ust be ai* be=ore

*istribution o= the estate. 2f not yet paid, the rule requires that the distributees post abond or make such pro!isions as to meet the said ta obligation in proportion to theirrespecti!e shares in the inheritance. (-state O= RuiF vs. CA, G.R. No. 118>!1, %anuar&2#, 1##>)

Dec!aration o( heirs can 2e made e%en 2e(ore the satis(action o( the o2!i+ationchar+ea2!e to the estate:

hat the court is en*oined from doing is the assignment or distribution of the residueof the deceased=s estate before the abo!e6mentioned obligations chargeable to the estateare rst paid. (owhere from said section may it be inferred that the court cannot make adeclaration of heirs prior to the satisfaction of these obligations. (N+o 7he ?ua vs. Chun+Hiat ?ua, G.R. No. 4;1!0#1, Sete/ber 30, 1#>3)

Determination o( char+es a+ainst the estate necessar, 2e(ore the distri2ution o(!e+a! share:

Pefore any conclusion about the legal share due to a compulsory heir may be reached, it isnecessary that the net estate of the decedent must be ascertained, by deducting all payableobligations and charges from the !alue of the property owned by the deceased at the timeof his death1 then, all donations sub*ect to collation would be added to it, form there, thelegitime of the compulsory heir or heirs can be established1 and it is only then can it beascertained whether or not a donation had pre*udiced the legitimes. (Natcher vs. CA, G.R.No. 133000, October 2, 2001)

C!aim o( the creditor o( the heirs o( the deceased ma, 2e co!!ected (rom the shareo( the heir:

The creditor of the heirs of a deceased person is entitled to collect his claim out ofthe property which pertains by inheritance to said heirs, only after the debts of the testateor intestate succession ha!e been paid and when the net assets that are di!isible among theheirs are known, because the debts of the deceased must rst be paid before his heirs caninherit. (4itonEua vs. Montilla, G.R. No. 4;"1!0, %anuar& 31, 1#$2)

0.J.#. PROECT OF PARTITION

Po)er o( the *ro2ate court to determine share: Pro4ect o( *artition:

The probate court, in the eercise of its *urisdiction to distribute the estate, has thepower to determine the proportion or parts to which each distributee is entitled . A pro*ect ofpartition is merely a proposal for the distribution of the heredity estate which the court mayaccept or re*ect. 2t is the court that makes that distribution of the estate and determines thepersons entitled thereto. (9*a. :e Hila&5o vs. 7en+co, G.R. No. "$"2$ March 2!,1##2)

A**ro%a! o( the *ro4ect o( *artition does not terminate administration*roceedin+s:

2n the case of ontemayor vs. 8utierre>"$$H 4hil. C)+, an estate may be partitionede!en before the termination of the administration proceedings. ?ence, the appro!al of thepro*ect of partition did not necessarily terminate the administration proceedings. (4uFonSuret& vs. uebrar, G.R. No. 4;"0$1! %anuar& 31, 1#8")

Reuisites in order to consider sett!ement *roceedin+ c!osed:

''


23/63

2n order that a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of a deceased may bedeemed ready for nal closureB

"$+ there should ha!e been issued already an order of distribution or assignment ofthe estate of the decedent among or to those entitled thereto by will or by law, but

"'+ such order shall not be issued until after it is shown that the 7debts, funeral

epenses, epenses of administration, allowances, taes, etc. chargeable to the estate7ha!e been paid, which is but logical and proper.":+ Pesides, such an order is usually issued upon proper and specic application for

the purpose of the interested party or parties, and not of the court. (alicte vs. Ra/olete,G.R. No. 4;$$0!> Sete/ber 21, 1#8!)

'hen )i!! the heirs 2e entit!ed to residue o( the estate&

2t is only after, and not before, the payment of all debts, funeral charges, epenses ofadministration, allowance to the widow, and inheritance ta shall ha!e been e>ected thatthe court should make a declaration of heirs or of such persons as are entitled by law to theresidue. "8oran, -omments on the %ules of -ourt, 'nd ed., Lol. 22, p. :C&, citing -apistrano!s. (adurata, HC 4hil., &'01 Jope5 !s. Jope5, :& F>. @a5., :OC$.+ (%i/o+a;On vs.el/onte, 8" hil. $"$, G.R. No. 4;1>0$, Sete/ber 13, 1#"#)

Order o( distri2ution and de!i%er, o( the residue o( the estate c!oses thesett!ement *roceedin+:

hat brings an intestate "or testate+ proceeding to a close is the order of distributiondirecting deli!ery of the residue to the persons entitled thereto after paying theindebtedness, if any, left by the deceased. (C0 An* 4;2!8#> March 2#, 1#!")

Grounds to set aside 5na! !iuidation:

The only instance where a party interested in a probate proceeding may ha!e a nalliquidation set aside is when he is left out by reason of circumstances beyond his control orthrough mistake or inad!ertence not imputable to negligence. 9!en then, the better practiceto secure relief is reopening of the same case by proper motion within the reglementaryperiod, instead of an independent action. (9*a. :e Alberto vs. Ca, G.R. No. 4;2#!$#Ma& 18, 1#8#)

A(ter a**ro%a! o( *artition and distri2ution and recei*t o( share o( the distri2utee(orec!oses attac8 o its %a!idit,:

here a partition had not only been appro!ed and thus become a *udgment of thecourt, but distribution of the estate in pursuance of such partition had fully been carried out,and the heirs had recei!ed the property assigned to them, they are precluded fromsubsequently attacking its !alidity or any part of it. (Ralla vs. %u*+e ntalan, G.R. Nos.4;>32$3;$", Aril 2!, 1#8#)

Po)er to distri2ute e$c!usi%e )ith the *o)er court: Doctrine o( noninter(erence:

e hold that the separate action was improperly led for it is the probate court thathas eclusi!e *urisdiction to make a *ust and legal distribution of the estate. 2n the interest oforderly procedure and to a!oid confusing and con


24/63

As a general rule, the better practice, howe!er, for the heir who has not recei!ed hisshare, is to demand his share throu+h a *ro*er motion in the same *ro2ate oradministration *roceedin+s, or for reo*enin+ o( the *ro2ate or administrati%e*roceedin+s i( it had a!read, 2een c!osed, and not through an independentaction. (Solivio vs. CA, G.R. No. 83"8", 'ebruar& 12, 1##0)

A(AJK#2# of #oli!io and @uilas caseB

2n #oli!io case, the proceeding were still pending, thus, the mo!ant had lost her right toha!e herself declared as a co6heir in said proceedings. Pecause she failed to pursue themotion in the same action but instead erroneously chose to le a separate action. Unlike thecircumstances present in the @uilas case where the estate proceedings had already beenclosed and terminated for three years, thus, the separate action led by the mo!ant for theannulment of the pro*ect partition was allowed to continue.

0.J.0. INSTANCES ';EN PRO>ATE CO7RT -AB ISS7E 'RIT OF E=EC7TION

4robate court generally cannot issue a writ of eecution. 2t is not supposed to issue a

writ of eecution because its orders usually refer to the ad*udication of claims against theestate which the eecutor or administrator may satisfy without the necessity of resorting toa writ of eecution. The probate court, as such, does not render any *udgment enforceableby eecution. (astor, %r. vs. CA, G.R. No. 4;$>3"0, %une 2", 1#83)

The circumstances that the %ules of -ourt epressly species that the probate courtmay issue eecution

"$+ to satisfy "debts of the estate out of+ the contributi!e shares of de!isees, legateesand heirs in possession of the decedent=s assets (Sec. >. Rule 88+,

"'+ to enforce payment of the epenses of partition "Sec. 3, Rule #0),and":+ to satisfy the costs when a person is cited for eamination in probate proceedings

(Sec. 13, Rule 1"2+

Under the rule of inclusion unius est eclusion alterius, the abo!e cited instances arethe only circumstances when probate court can issue a writ of eecution. -learly, thepro!ision authori5es eecution to enforce payment of debts of estate. A legacy is not a debtof the estate.(astor, %r. vs. CA, G.R. No. 4;$>3"0, %une 2", 1#83)

0.J.. E9ects o( 4ud+ment o( !oca! courts:

#ection H& of %ule :C pro!idesB

The e>ect of a *udgment or nal order rendered by a court of the 4hilippines,ha!ing *urisdiction to pronounce the *udgment or nal order, may be as followsB

"a+ 2n case of a 4ud+ment or 5na! order against a specic thing, or inres*ect to the *ro2ate o( a )i!! or the administration o( the estate o( adeceased *erson or in res*ect to the *ersona! *o!itica! or !e+a! conditionor status o( a *articu!ar *erson or his re!ationshi* to another the

4ud+ment or 5na! order is conc!usi%e u*on the tit!e to the thin+ the )i!! oradministration or the condition status or re!ationshi* o( the *ersonhowe!er, the *ro2ate o( a )i!! or +rantin+ o( !etters o( administration sha!!on!, 2e *rima (acie e%idence o( the death o( the testator or intestate

0.K. TR7STEES

'hat is a trust&

A trustis a condence reposed in one person, called the trustee, for the benet ofanother, called the cestui que trust, with respect to property held by the former to the latter.

The person in whom the condence is reposed as regards property for the benet of anotheris known as trustee. (Secial rocee*in+s b& Ge/ilito 'estin, Secon* -*ition, 2011,a+e 13")

'H


25/63

'hat is an e$*ress trust&

E$*ress trusts

are those which are created by the direct and positi!e acts of theparties, by some writing or deed, or will, or by words e!incing an intention to create a trust.2mplied trusts

are those which, without being epress, are deducible from the nature of thetransaction as matters of intent, or which are superinduced on the transaction by operation

of law as matters of equity, independently of the particular intention of the parties. (OLlacovs. Co Cho Chit, G.R. No. $8010. March 31, 1##3.)

'hat is a resu!tin+ trust&

A resultin+ trustis one that arises by implication of law and presumed always toha!e been contemplated by the parties, the intention as to which can be found in the natureof their transaction although not epressed in a deed or instrument of con!eyance. Upon theother hand, a constructive trust is a trust not created by any word or phrase, eitherepressly or impliedly, e!incing a direct intention to create a trust, but one that arises inorder to satisfy the demands of *ustice. (@a vs. CA, G.R. No. 1330"!. Au+ust 1!,1###)

Im*!ied trust ma, 2e esta2!ished 2, *aro! e%idence&

2mplied Trust may be established by parol e!idence, 9press Trust cannot. 9!en then, inorder to establish an implied trust in real property by parol e!idence, the proof should be asfully con!incing as if the acts gi!ing rise to the trust obligation are pro!en by an authenticdocument. An implied trust, in ne, cannot be established upon !ague and inconclusi!eproof. (@a vs. CA, G.R. No. 1330"!. Au+ust 1!, 1###)

Reuisites to 2ar action 2, 2ene5ciar, a+ainst trustee )hich acuired tit!e to the*ro*ert, 2, acuisiti%e *rescri*tion:

2t is true that in epress trusts and resulting trusts, a trustee cannot acquire byprescription a property entrusted to him unless he repudiates the trust. Acquisiti!eprescription may bar the action of the beneciary against the trustee in an epress trust forthe reco!ery of the property held in trust where "a+ the trustee has performed unequi!ocalacts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the cestui 0ue trust1 "b+ such positi!e acts ofrepudiation ha!e been made known to the cestui 0ue trust, and "c+ the e!idence thereon isclear and conclusi!e. (7orbela vs. Rosario, G.R. No. 1"0$28 G.R. No. 1"0$$3,:ece/ber !, 2011 )E!ements (or the e$istence o( trust:

As a rule, howe!er, the burden of pro!ing the eistence of a trust is on the partyasserting its eistence, and such proof must be clear and satisfactorily show the eistence ofthe trust and its elements. The presence of the following elements must be pro!edB ?1@ atrustor or settlor who eecutes the instrument creating the trust1 ?#@a trustee, who is theperson epressly designated to carry out the trust1 ?/@ the trust res, consisting of duly

identied and denite real properties1 and ?0@ the cestui 0ue trust,or beneciaries whoseidentity must be clear. (CAN-O 9S RO%AS, G.R. NO. 1"8!88, NO9-M-R 23, 200!)

0.K.1. DISTING7IS;ED FRO- E=EC7TORAD-INISTRATOR

E$ecutorAdministrator Trustee

Accounts are +;6 under oatand e$ce*tforinitial and nal submission of accounts1 theyshall be led only at such times as may beR=?@R=Aby the court.

Accounts must be @+A=R ;*6B and led*++@*99C.

-ourt that has *urisdiction may be 6 orR6.

-ourt which has *urisdiction is R6 ifappointed to carry into e>ect pro!isions of awill1 if trustee dies, resigns or remo!ed in acontractual trust, %T- has *urisdiction in theappointment of new trustee.

8ay sell, encumber or mortgage property if 8ay sell or encumber property of estate held

')


26/63

it is necessary for the purpose of payingdebts, epenses of administration orlegacies, or for the preser!ation of propertyor if sale will be benecial to heirs, legateesor de!isees. (@pon *DD9*6;+ to te courtwit written +;6= to te eirs.)

in trust if necessary or epedient upon;RA=Rof the court.

Frder of sale has +; 6= 96. Frder of sale has +; 6= 96.

Appointed by the court to S=669=estate ofdecedent.

Appointed to *RRC +6; =11=6thepro!isions of a will or written instrument

"contractual trust+.

+;6 =E=D6=Afrom ling bond e!en if sucheemption is pro!ided in the will "bond isonly conditioned upon payment of debts+.

8ay be =E=D6=A from ling bond ifpro!ided in the will or if beneciariesrequested eemption.

#er!ices of eecutor or administrator areterminated @D;+ D*C=+6 ;1 A=:6Sof the

estate and distribution of property to heirs.

Trusteeship is terminated upon 6@R++8;F=R 6B= DR;D=R6C to beneciary after

epiration of trust "period may be pro!idedfor in the will or trust contract+.

@S6 D*Cthe debts of the estate.+; ;:98*6;+to pay debts of beneciaryor trustor.

"39U Par %e!iewer 'O$H, %emedial Jaw, page $H) +

0.K.#. CONDITIONS OF T;E >OND

The following conditions shall be deemed a part of the bond whether written thereinor not

$+ 2(L9(TF%K. The trustee shall submit to the court an in!entory of the personal andreal estate belonging to him as trustee who shall ha!e come to his possession or knowledge.

'+ 8A(A@989(T A(G G2#4F#2T2F(. The trustee shall manage and dispose of suchestate and faithfully discharge his trust in relation thereto.

:+ A--FU(T. The trustee shall render under oath at least once a year until his trustis fullled an account of the property in his hands and of the management and dispositionthereof.

H+ #9TTJ989(T F3 A--FU(T#. The trustee shall settle his accounts and deli!er theremaining estate in his hands to those entitled thereto (S> R#8 Manuel R. Ri+uera Secial rocee*in+ Notes).

0.K./. RE7ISITES FOR T;E RE-O6AL AND RESIGNATION OF A TR7STEE:

1@ I( remo%a! a**ears essentia! in the interests o( the *etitioners:

a+ 4etition to the proper %T- of the parties benecially interested1b+ Gue notice to the trustee1 andc+ ?earing

#@ Remo%a! o( a trustee )ho is insane or other)ise inca*a2!e o( dischar+in+his trust or e%ident!, unsuita2!e there(ore:

a+ At the initiati!e of the court1b+ After due notice to all persons interested

/@ Resi+nation:

a+ whether appointed by the court or under a written instrument1b+ if it appears to the court proper to allow such resignation ('- Re/e*ial 4a

Revieer 201", a+e 1">)

0.K.0. GRO7NDS FOR RE-O6AL AND RESIGNATION OF A TR7STEE

'0


27/63

"$+ A*/inistration revo5e* i= ill *iscovere*. rocee*in+s thereuon.2f afterletters of administration ha!e been granted on the estate of a decedent as if he had diedintestate, his will is pro!ed and allowed by the court, the letters of administration shall bere!oked and all powers thereunder cease, and the administrator shall forthwith surrenderthe letters to the court, and render his account within such time as the court directs.4roceedings for the issuance of letters testamentary or of administration under the will shall

be as hereinbefore pro!ided (Sec. 1, Rule 82).

"'+ Court /a& re/ove or accet resi+nation o= eecutor or a*/inistrator.rocee*in+s uon *eath, resi+nation, or re/oval.2f an eecutor or administratorneglects to render his account and settle the estate according to law, or to perform an orderor *udgment of the court, or a duty epressly pro!ided by these rules, or absconds, orbecomes insane, or otherwise incapable or unsuitable to discharge the trust, the court mayremo!e him, or, in its discretion, may permit him to resign. hen an eecutor oradministrator dies, resigns, or is remo!ed the remaining eecutor or administrator mayadminister the trust alone, unless the court grants letters to someone to act with him. 2fthere is no remaining eecutor or administrator, administration may be granted to anysuitable person (Sec. 2, Rule 82).

0.K.. E=TENT OF A7T;ORITB OF TR7STEE

Ri+hts *o)ers and duties o( a trustee:

A trustee appointed by the %T- shall ha!e the same rights, powers, and duties, and inwhom the estate shall !est, as if he had been appointed by the testator. (o personsucceeding to a trust as eecutor or administrator of a former trustee shall be required toaccept such trust. ?Section 2, Rule #8@

2n case of !acancy where the %T- has appointed a new trustee, such new trustee shall ha!eand eercise the same powers, rights, and duties as if he had been originally appointed, andthe trust estate shall !est in him in like manner as it had !ested or would ha!e !ested, in thetrustee in whose place he is substituted1 and the court may order such con!eyance to bemade by the former trustee or his representati!es, or by the other remaining trustees, asmay be necessary or proper to !est the trust estate in the new trustee, either alone or

Iointly with the others. "#ec. :, %ule C/+

0.1


28/63

O>ECTI6E OF ESC;EAT PROCEEDINGS

2t is not the intent of the law to force depositors into unnecessary litigation anddefense of their rights, as the state is only interested in escheating balances that ha!e beenabandoned and left without an owner.

e reiterate our pronouncement that the ob*ecti!e of escheat proceedings is state

forfeiture of unclaimed balances. RiFal Co//ercial an5in+ Cororation vs. ?i;7ri:evelo/ent Cororation an* 4uF R. a5unaa., G.R. No. 1#2"13, %une 13, 2012)

0.1, 1#>0)

'/


29/63

0.1ecti!ely, guardianship would be treated in two parts, one pursuant toAdministrati!e matter no. O:6O'6O) #- which deals with @uardianship of 8inors and the

other refers to the @uardianship of 2ncompetents under %ules C'6C&.

Also, in @uardianship of 8inors, it is the 3amily -ourt of the place where the minorresides or if a non6resident, with the 3amily -ourt of the place where the minors property orpart thereof is situated, which has *urisdiction o!er the guardianship proceeding. (as can be+leane* =ro/ the rovisions o= RA 83>#) Fn the other hand, with regard to@uardianship of 2ncompetents, it is the %T- of the place where the incompetent resides or ifa non6resident, with the %T- of the place where the incompetents property or part thereof issituated, which has *urisdiction o!er the guardianship proceeding for such

'C
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/192413.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/192413.htm#_ftn8


30/63

incompetent. "Secial rocee*in+s Annotations b& ?errera, 200! -*ition, a+e232+

Pur*ose o( +uardianshi*&

A guardianship is designed to further the wards well6being, not that of the guardian.

2t is intended to preser!e the wards property, as well as to render any assistance that theward may personally require. 2t has been stated that while custody in!ol!es immediate careand control, guardianship indicates not only those responsibilities, but those of one in loco

parentisas well. (Oroesa vs. Oroesa, G.R. No. 18"$28, Aril 2$, 2012)

>asis o( +uardianshi* o( minor:

here minors are in!ol!ed, the State acts asarens atriaewhich is inherent inthe supreme power of e!ery #tate, whether that power is lodged in a royal person or in thelegislature, and has no aNnity to those arbitrary powers which are sometimes eerted byirresponsible monarchs to the great detriment of the people and the destruction of theirliberties. Fn the contrary, it is a most benecent function, and often necessary to beeercised in the interest of humanity, and for the pre!ention of in*ury to those who cannot

protect themsel!es.7 (:e 4eon vs. 4orenFo, Gr4;230#> Aril 2!, 1#!2)

NAT7RAL G7ARDIAN 6S. 7DICIAL G7ARDIAN : PO'ER TO DISPOSE OR ENC7->ERT;E PROPERTB OF 'ARD

Thus, a father or mother, as the natural guardian of the minor under parentalauthority, does not ha!e the power to dispose or encumber the property of the latter. #uchpower is granted by law only to a *udicial guardian of the wards property and e!en then onlywith courts prior appro!al secured in accordance with the proceedings set forth by the %ulesof -ourt. (Naoleon :. Neri, Alicia :. Neri;Mon*eEar, 9is/in*a :. Neri;Cha/bers,Rosa :. Neri;Millan, :ou+las :. Neri, -utroia :. )

&+ 8ust render to the court an in!entory of the estate of his ward within three monthsafter his appointment and annually after such appointment1 such in!entories and accountsshall be sworn to by the guardian. (Sec. !)

/+ Upon the epiration of a year from the time of his appointment, and as oftenthereafter as may be required, a guardian must present his account to the court forsettlement and allowance. (Sec. 8)

Po)er o( the *arent!e+a! +uardian o%er the *ro*ert, o( the minor reuires4udicia! *o)er:

Under the law, a parent, acting merely as the legal "as distinguished from *udicial+

administrator of the property of hisher minor children, does not ha!e the power to disposeof, or alienate, the property of said children without *udicial appro!al. The powers and dutiesof the widow as legal administrator of her minor children=s property as pro!ided in %ule /Hby the %ules of -ourt are only powers of possession and management. (4in*ain vs.


31/63

4arents and guardians may not therefore repudiate the inheritance of their wardswithout *udicial appro!al. This is because repudiation amounts to an alienation of propertywhich must pass the court=s scrutiny in order to protect the interest of the ward. (ot ha!ingbeen *udicially authori5ed, the %elease and ai!er of -laim in the instant case is !oid andwill not bar pri!ate respondents from asserting their rights as heirs of the deceased. (Gu&vs. CA, G.R. No. 1>3!0!, Sete/ber 1$, 200>)

Po)er o( the +uardianshi* s*ecia! and !imited:

@enerally, the guardianship court eercising special and limited *urisdiction cannotactually order the deli!ery of the property of the ward found to be embe55led, concealed orcon!eyed.2n a categorical language of this -ourt, only in etreme cases, where propertyclearly belongs to the ward or where his title thereto has been already *udicially decided,may the court direct its deli!ery to the guardian. (arco 6 autista vs. CA, G.R. No. 4;331$2 %anuar& 30, 1#82)

Conict o( interest a +round (or the remo%a! o( the +uardian:

-on, :ece/ber28, 1#>1)

Re!ationshi* o( +uardian and )ard is disso!%ed 2, death

2t is a well6established rule that the relationship of guardian and ward is necessarilyterminated by the death of either the guardian or the ward. The super!ening e!ent of deathrendered it pointless to del!e into the propriety of Piasons appointment since the *uridical

tie between him and 8aura has already been dissol!ed.(-*uar*o 7. Aba* vs. 4eonar*oiason an* Gabriel Ma+no., G.R. No. 1#1##3, :ece/ber $, 2012)

0.11.#. CONDITIONS OF T;E >OND OF T;E G7ARDIAN

Pefore an appointed guardian enters upon the eecution of his trust, he shall gi!e aPF(G.

Conditions:$+ To make and return to the court, within three ":+ months, a true and complete

2(L9(TF%K of all the estate of his ward which shall come to his possession or knowledge or

to the possession or knowledge of any other person for him1'+ To 3A2T?3UJJK eecute the duties of his trust, to manage and dispose of the estate

according to these rules for the best interests of the ward, and to pro!ide for the propercare, custody, and education of the ward1

:+ To %ender a true and *ust A--FU(T of all the estate of the ward in his hands, andof all proceeds or interest deri!ed therefrom, and of the management and disposition of thesame, at the time designated by these rules and such other times as the court directs1 andat the epiration of his trust to #ettle his accounts with the court and Geli!er and pay o!erall the estate, e>ects, and moneys remaining in his hands, or due from him on suchsettlement, to the person lawfully entitled thereto1

H+ To 49%3F%8 all orders of the court by him to be performed. "Section 1, rule #"+

Pur*ose o( the >ondB

The purpose of the bond is for the protection of the property of the minor orincompetent to the end that he may be assured of an honest administration of his fundsduring his minority. The bond ser!ed as security to those interested in the propertysettlement of the estate, and the parties interested acquire a !ested interest in the bondwhich cannot be di!ested without their consent, ecept in a manner prescribed by law(Secial rocee*in+s, ?errera, 200$ -*ition . 281+.

Necessit, o( the >ond:

:$


32/63

hen required by statutes to gi!e a bond, no person can qualify and acts as guardianwithout complying with this condition precedent. The court should not grant letters ofguardianship without requiring a bond. (Secial rocee*in+s, ?errera, 200$ -*ition .282)

0.11./. R7LE ON G7ARDIANS;IP O6ER -INOR

SALIENT PRO6ISIONS 7NDER T;E R7LE ON G7ARDIANS;IP OF -INORS ?A- NO.03;02;0$ SC@:

I. APPLICA>ILITB OF T;E R7LE:

Father and mother as !e+a! +uardian o( minor court a**ointment not reuired:

The father and mother shall *ointly eercise legal guardianship o!er the person andproperty of their unemancipated common child without the necessity of a courtappointment. The %ule shall be suppletory to the pro!isions of the 3amily -ode onguardianship (Sec. 1, AM NO. 03;02;0$ SC).

'ho ma, 5!e *etition (or +uardianshi*&

Fn grounds authori5ed by law, any relati!e or other person on behalf of a minor, orthe minor himself if $H years of age or o!er, may petition the 3amily -ourt for theappointment of a general guardian o!er the person or property, or both, of such minor. Thepetition may also be led by the #ecretary of G#G and of the GF? in the case of an insaneminor who needs to be hospitali5ed (Sec. 1, AM NO. 03;02;0$ SC).

II. GRO7NDS FOR PETITION (Section ", AM NO. 03;02;0$ SC)

The grounds for the appointment of a guardian o!er the person or property or both,of a minor are the followingB

$+ Geath, continued absence or incapacity of his parents1'+ #uspension, depri!ation or termination of parental authority1:+ %emarriage of his sur!i!ing parent, if the latter is found unsuitable to eercise

parental authority1 orH+ hen the best interest of the minor so require.

III. 'ho ma, 2e a**ointed +uardian o( the *erson or *ro*ert, or 2oth o( a minor(Section >, AM NO. 03;02;0$ SC)

2n default of parents or a court6appointed guardian, the court may appoint a guardianof the person or property or both of a minor, obser!ing as far as practicable, in the followingorder of preferenceB

$+ The sur!i!ing grandparent in case se!eral grandparent sur!i!e, the court shallselect any of them taking into account all rele!ant considerations1

'+ The oldest brother or sister of the minor o!er twenty6one years of age, unless untor disqualied1

:+ The actual custodian of the minor o!er twenty6one years of age, unless unt ordisqualied1 or

H+ Any other person, who in the sound discretion of the court, would ser!e the bestinterest of the minor.

I6. 7ALIFICATIONS OF G7ARDIANS(Section $, AM NO. 03;02;0$ SC)

a+ 8oral character1b+ 4hysical, mental and psychological condition1

c+ 3inancial status1d+ %elationship of trust with the minor1e+ A!ailability to eercise the powers and duties of a guardian for the full period of

the guardianship1f+ Jack of con


33/63

6. CASE ST7DB REPORT(Section #, AM NO. 03;02;0$ SC)

The court shall order a social worker to conduct a case study of the minor and all theprospecti!e guardians and submit his report and recommendation to the court for itsguidance before the scheduled hearing. The social worker may inter!ene on behalf of theminor if he nds that the petition for guardianship should be denied.

6I. 'hen and ;o) a Guardian o( the Pro*ert, (or Nonresident -inor is A**ointedNotice(Section 12, AM NO. 03;02;0$ SC)

hen minor resides outside the 4hilippines but has property in the 4hilippinesB

$+ Any relati!e or friend of such minor or anyone interested in his property, inepectancy or otherwise, may petition to the 3amily -ourt for the appointment of a guardiano!er his property.

'+ (otice of hearing shall be gi!en to the minor by publication or any other means asthe court may deem proper. The court may dispense with the presence of the non6residentminor.

6II. >ond o( Parents as Guardians o( Pro*ert, o( -inor (Sec. 1>, AM NO. 03;02;0$SC)

2f the market !alue of the property or the annual income of the child eceeds4)O,OOO.OO, the parent concern shall furnish a bond in such amount as the court maydetermine, but in no case less than $OQ of the !alue of such property or annual income, toguarantee the performance of the obligations prescribed for general guardians.

NOTE:A !eried petition for appro!al of the bond shall be led in the 3amily -ourt of theplace where the child resides, or, if the child resides i

special proceedings revised_sscr col

Documents