Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 76 views

    Aranas V.mercado

    Uploaded by

    paulus johnes Pavericio
    Thelma filed a petition to appoint Teresita as administrator of Emigdio's estate. Teresita submitted an inventory that Thelma opposed, claiming it excluded properties. The RTC ordered Teresita to amend the inventory. COA reversed, affirming Teresita's original inventory. The issue is whether COA properly determined that RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in directing inclusion of certain properties that Emigdio had transferred before death. COA ruled that RTC acted within its authority and discretion as an intestate court, and its orders must be respected absent grave abuse of discretion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Aranas V.mercado

    Uploaded by

    paulus johnes Pavericio
    76 views2 pages
    Thelma filed a petition to appoint Teresita as administrator of Emigdio's estate. Teresita submitted an inventory that Thelma opposed, claiming it excluded properties. The RTC ordered Teresita to amend the inventory. COA reversed, affirming Teresita's original inventory. The issue is whether COA properly determined that RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in directing inclusion of certain properties that Emigdio had transferred before death. COA ruled that RTC acted within its authority and discretion as an intestate court, and its orders must be respected absent grave abuse of discretion.

    Original Description:

    aranas vs mercado (specpro0

    Original Title

    DocMH.com Aranas v.mercado

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Thelma filed a petition to appoint Teresita as administrator of Emigdio's estate. Teresita submitted an inventory that Thelma opposed, claiming it excluded properties. The RTC ordered Teresita to amend the inventory. COA reversed, affirming Teresita's original inventory. The issue is whether COA properly determined that RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in directing inclusion of certain properties that Emigdio had transferred before death. COA ruled that RTC acted within its authority and discretion as an intestate court, and its orders must be respected absent grave abuse of discretion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    76 views2 pages

    Aranas V.mercado

    Uploaded by

    paulus johnes Pavericio
    Thelma filed a petition to appoint Teresita as administrator of Emigdio's estate. Teresita submitted an inventory that Thelma opposed, claiming it excluded properties. The RTC ordered Teresita to amend the inventory. COA reversed, affirming Teresita's original inventory. The issue is whether COA properly determined that RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in directing inclusion of certain properties that Emigdio had transferred before death. COA ruled that RTC acted within its authority and discretion as an intestate court, and its orders must be respected absent grave abuse of discretion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    , Petitioner, v. TERESITA V.

    MERCADO
    THELMA M. ARANAS

    FACTS:

    1. Emigdio died intestate, survived by his second wife, Teresita, and their five
    children and 2 grandchildren including Thelma, petitioner.
    2. Emigdio inherited and acquired real properties during his lifetime. He owned
    corporate shares in Mervir ealty and !ebu Emerson. He assigned his real properties in
    e"change for corporate stoc#s of Mervir ealty, and sold his real property in $adian,
    !ebu to Mervir ealty
    %. Thelma filed in the egional Trial !ourt &T!' in !ebu !ity a petition for the
    appointment of Teresita as the administrator of Emigdio(s estate. The T! granted the
    petition considering that there was no opposition. )s the administrator, Teresita submitted
    an inventory of the estate of Emigdio for the consideration and approval by the T!.
    However, claiming that Emigdio had owned other properties that were e"cluded from the
    inventory, Thelma moved that the T! direct Teresita to amend the inventory, and to be
    e"amined regarding it. The T! granted.
    *. Teresita filed a compliance with the order supporting her inventory with copies
    certificates of stoc#s from Mervir ealty, the deed of assignment e"ecuted by Emigdio
    involving real properties and the certificate of stoc# issued of !ebu Emerson, but again
    Thelma opposed the approval of the inventory, and as#ed leave of court to e"amine
    Teresita on the inventory.
    +. T! held that the inventory submitted by Teresita had e"cluded properties that
    should be included . The !ourt hereby denied the administratri"(s motion for approval of
    inventory and ordered the said administratri" to redo the inventory of properties.
    -. !) reversed the decision of the T! by )/)0E and affi rmed the inventory
    submitted by Teresita.

    334E5

    6hether or not the !) properly determine that the T! committed grave abuse of
    discretion amounting to lac# or e"cess of 7urisdiction in directing the inclusion of certain
    properties in the inventory notwithstanding that such properties had been either
    transferred by sale or e"changed for corporate shares in Mervir ealty by the decedent
    during his lifetime.

    4085

    The answer is in the negative.


    The determination of which properties should be e"cluded from or included in the
    inventory of estate properties was well within the authority and discretion of the T! as
    an intestate court. n ma#ing its determination, the T! acted with circumspection, and
    proceeded under the guiding policy that it was best to include all properties in the
    possession of the administrator or were #nown to the administrator to belong to Emigdio
    rather than to e"clude properties that could turn out in the end to be actually part of the
    estate. )s long as the T! commits no patent grave abuse of discretion, its orders must
    be respected as part of the regular performance of its 7udicial duty.

    The probate court is authori9ed to determine the issue of ownership of properties for
    purposes of their inclusion or e"clusion from the inventory to be submitted by the
    administrator, but its determination shall only be provisional unless the interested parties
    are all heirs of the decedent, or the question is one of collation or advancement, or the
    parties consent to the assumption of 7urisdiction by the probate court and the rights of
    third parties are not impaired. ts 7urisdiction e"tends to matters incidental or collateral to
    the settlement and distribution of the estate, such as the determination of the status of
    each heir and whether property included in the inventory is the con7ugal or e"clusive
    property of the deceased spouse.

    You might also like