23. UY VS. CA Branch 52 of Bacolod City in Special Proceedings No.

97-241,2 as well as the April

29, 2005 Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration.3
G.R. No. 167979. March 16, 2006.* The facts of the case show that Jose K.C. Uy (Deceased) died intestate on
WILSON S. UY, as Judicial Administrator of the Intestate Estate of the August 20, 1996 and is survived by his spouse, Sy Iok Ing Uy, and his five children,
Deceased JOSE K. C. UY, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. namely, Lilian S. Uy, Lilly S. Uy, Livian S. Uy-Garcia, Lilen S. Uy and Wilson S. Uy
ANASTACIO C. RUFON, As Presiding Judge of Branch 52, of the Regional Trial (Petitioner).
Court, Sixth Judicial Region, sitting at Bacolod City, and JOHNNY K. H. UY, _______________
1
respondents.  Rollo, pp. 63-67. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente L. Yap and concurred in
Civil Law; Succession; Courts;  Jurisdictions;  The main function of a probate by Associate Justices Arsenio J. Magpale and Ramon M. Bato, Jr.
2
court is to settle and liquidate the estates of deceased persons either summarily or  Id., at pp. 77-79. Penned by Judge Anastacio C. Rufon.
3
through the process of administration.—The main function of a probate court is to  Id., at pp. 69-71.
settle and liquidate the estates of deceased persons either summarily or through the 701
process of administration. In the case at bar, the trial court granted letters of VOL. 484, MARCH 16, 2006 701
administration to petitioner and thereafter to private respondent as co-administrator. Uy vs. Court of Appeals
Same;  Same; Same;  Administrator;  The determination of a person’s suitability On February 18, 1997, Special Proceedings No. 97-241 was instituted and Lilia
for the office of administrator rests, to a great extent, in the sound judgment of the Hofileña was appointed as special administrator of the estate of the deceased.
court exercising the power of appointment and such judgment will not be interfered Petitioner moved to reconsider the order appointing Lilia Hofileña as special
with on appeal unless it appears affirmatively that the court below was in error.—The administrator with prayer that letters of administration be issued to him instead.4
order of preference in the appointment of an administrator depends on the attendant On June 9, 1998, Judge Ramon B. Posadas revoked Lilia Hofileña’s appointment
facts and circumstances. In Sioca v. Garcia, 44 Phil. 711 (1923), this Court set aside as special administrator and denied her petition to be appointed as regular
the order of preference, to wit: It is well settled that a probate court cannot arbitrarily administrator. Meanwhile, letters of administration were granted to petitioner, who
and without sufficient reason disregard the preferential rights of the surviving spouse took his oath of office as administrator on June 23, 1998.
to the administration of the estate of the deceased spouse. But, if the person On February 17, 1999, Johnny K. H. Uy (Private Respondent) filed a motion to
enjoying such preferential rights is unsuitable, the court may appoint another intervene, praying that he be appointed as administrator of the estate in lieu of
person. The determination of a person’s suitability for the office of administrator petitioner. He alleged that he is the brother and a creditor of the deceased, and has
rests, to a great extent, in the sound judgment of the court exercising the power of knowledge of the properties that should be included in the estate.
appointment and such judgment will not be interfered with on appeal unless it The trial court initially denied private respondent’s motion to intervene, 5 but on
appears affirmatively that the court below was in error. x x x Unsuitableness may March 16, 2000,6 it reconsidered its earlier order and appointed private respondent as
consist in adverse interest of some kind or hostility to those immediately co-administrator of the estate. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
interested in the estate. x x x. Petitioner then moved that private respondent bring into the estate properties
_______________ belonging to the deceased, which motion was granted by the trial court. Not satisfied
*
 FIRST DIVISION. with the compliance of private respondent, petitioner reiterated his motion for removal
700 of the former as co-administrator, but the same was denied.
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED The trial court found that private respondent substantially complied with the order
Uy vs. Court of Appeals directing him to bring into the estate properties owned by or registered in the name of
Same;  Same; Same;  Same; A co-administrator performs all the functions and the deceased not subject of any adverse claim or controversy when he listed
duties and exercises all the powers of a regular administrator, only that he is not _______________
4
alone in the administration.—A coadministrator performs all the functions and duties  Id., at p. 64.
5
and exercises all the powers of a regular administrator, only that he is not alone in the  Id.
6
administration. The practice of appointing co-administrators in estate proceedings is  Id., at pp. 204-205.
not prohibited. In Gabriel v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 413 (1992), this Court 702
reaffirmed that jurisprudence allows the appointment of co-administrators under 702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
certain circumstances. Uy vs. Court of Appeals
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of the alleged properties suspected to be concealed, embezzled or conveyed away by
Appeals. the persons named therein. Thus, it found no cogent reason to remove private
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. respondent as co-administrator.7
     Jose Ma. Abola for petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for
     Joselito Bayatan for private respondent. certiorari which however, dismissed the petition.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: The Court of Appeals held that the refusal of the trial court to remove private
Petitioner assails the August 20, 2004 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. respondent as co-administrator of the estate is neither an error of jurisdiction nor a
SP No. 72678,1 affirming the January 22, 2002 Order of the Regional Trial Court, grave abuse of discretion; that the appointment of private respondent was justified;

Page 1 of 3
 8
that the order of preference under Section 6 of Rule 78 of the Rules of Court does not  Id., at pp. 23-25.
rule out the appointment of co-administrators; that the institution of a case for 704
annulment of title and reconveyance against respondent does not justify private 704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
respondent’s removal as co-administrator. Uy vs. Court of Appeals
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, hence, this petition on the to petition the government for redress of grievances by not addressing the issues
following grounds: raised before it.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE RESPONDENT The petition is without merit.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT HAVE ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR IN GRAVE Petitioner asserts that his appointment as a regular administrator is already final,
ABUSE OF THEIR DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO LACK OF JURISDICTION (sic), unassailable or res judicata; that the inferior court has no authority to re-open the
IN VIOLATION [OF] THE ESTABLISHED AND ACCEPTED RULE OF LAW AND IN issue of the appointment of an administrator without removing the incumbent
COMPLETE DISREGARD OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY IN administrator; that private respondent is not only alien to the estate, but has a conflict
APPOINTING A CO-ADMINISTRATOR OF AN ESTATE (IN THE PROCESS OF of interest with it; that the trial court’s appointment of private respondent as co-
SETTLEMENT) WHERE THERE IS AN INCUMBENT ADMINISTRATOR WHOSE administrator constitutes grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction.
APPOINTMENT IS FIRM, FINAL, IMPLEMENTED AND INAPPEALABLE, AND There is no question that petitioner was appointed as regular administrator of the
WHICH (sic) APPOINTMENT HAS NOT BEEN CANCELLED, RECALLED, estate of the deceased Jose K. C. Uy on June 9, 1998. However, private respondent
REVOKED OR RESCINDED BY APPOINTING, AT THAT, A PERSON in his motion to intervene sought to be appointed as administrator as he is not only
(A) the brother of the decedent but also a creditor who knows the extent of the latter’s
ALIEN TO THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED, WITH VARIOUS SERIOUS properties. Thus, the trial court, while retaining petitioner as administrator, appointed
INTERESTS (ACTUAL JUDICIAL private respondent as co-administrator of the estate.
_______________ The main function of a probate court is to settle and liquidate the estates of
7
 Id., at pp. 80-82. deceased persons either summarily or through the process of administration. 9 In the
703 case at bar, the trial court granted letters of administration to petitioner and thereafter
VOL. 484, MARCH 16, 2006 703 to private respondent as co-administrator. Under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of
Uy vs. Court of Appeals Court, the preference to whom letters of administration may be granted are as
CONTROVERSIES) IN CONFLICT WITH THOSE OF THE ESTATE, AND follows:
(B) SEC. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted.—If no executor is
WITH NO PROPER INTEREST IN THE ESTATE AND WHO IS PERSONALLY named in the will, or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or
UNFIT, UNSUITABLE, UNWORTHY, UNDESERVING OF THE TRUST INHERENT fail to give bond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall be granted:
IN THE POSITION OF CO-ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE, AND _______________
9
UNACCEPTABLE AND REPULSIVE TO THE FAMILY OF THE LEGAL HEIRS OF  Intestate Estate of the Late Don Mariano San Pedro v. Court of Appeals, 333
THE DECEASED; AND THEN REFUSING TO REMOVE HIM AS CO- Phil. 597, 616-617; 265 SCRA 733, 750 (1996), citing Maniñgat v. Castillo, 75 Phil.
ADMINISTRATOR AFTER IT WAS SHOWN THAT HIS REPRESENTATIONS ON 532, 535 (1945).
WHICH HE WAS APPOINTED CO-ADMINISTRATOR WERE EMPTY AND FALSE; 705
AND VOL. 484, MARCH 16, 2006 705
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS DENIED Uy vs. Court of Appeals
PETITIONER HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND 1. (a)To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or
HIS RIGHT TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES both, in the discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving
BY NOT ADDRESSING AND RESOLVING THE ISSUES BROUGHT TO IT BY THE husband or wife, or next of kin, requests to have appointed, if competent
PETITIONER, MORE ESPECIFICALLY THE ISSUES OF and willing to serve;
(1) 2. (b)If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or
RES JUDICATA AND STABILITY OF THE JUDGMENT APPOINTING THE the person selected by them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband
PETITIONER HEREIN AS JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE IN or widow, or next of kin, neglects for thirty (30) days after the death of the
QUESTION, AND person to apply for administration or to request that administration be
(2) granted to some other person, it may be granted to one or more of the
DECIDING THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO THE principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve;
RULES SET DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT ON THE MATTER. 8 3. (c)If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be
The main issues for resolution are: (1) whether the trial court acted with grave abuse granted to such other person as the court may select.
of discretion in appointing private respondent as co-administrator to the estate of the The order of preference in the appointment of an administrator depends on the
deceased; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals deprived petitioner of his attendant facts and circumstances.10 In Sioca v. Garcia,11 this Court set aside the
constitutional right to due process and his right order of preference, to wit:
_______________

Page 2 of 3
“It is well settled that a probate court cannot arbitrarily and without sufficient reason “Under both Philippine and American jurisprudence, the appointment of co-
disregard the preferential rights of the surviving spouse to the administration of the administrators has been upheld for various reasons, viz.: (1) to have the benefit of
estate of the deceased spouse. But, if the person enjoying such preferential their judgment and perhaps at all times to have different interests represented; (2)
rights is unsuitable, the court may appoint another person. The determination of where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or factions be represented in
a person’s suitability for the office of administrator rests, to a great extent, in the the management of the estate of the deceased; (3) where the estate is large or,
sound judgment of the court exercising the power of appointment and such judgment from any cause, an intricate and perplexing one to settle; (4) to have all
will not be interfered with on appeal unless it appears affirmatively that the court interested persons satisfied and the representatives to work in harmony for the best
below was in error. interests of the estate; and (5) when a person entitled to the administration of an
x x x Unsuitableness may consist in adverse interest of some kind or estate desires to have another competent person associated with him in the
hostility to those immediately interested in the estate. x x x.”12 (Emphasis office.”17 (Emphasis supplied)
supplied, citations omitted) Thus, petitioner’s argument that the trial court cannot reopen the issue of the
_______________ appointment of an administrator without removing the incumbent administrator is
10
 Silverio, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, 364 Phil. 188, 210; 304 SCRA 541, 562-563 erroneous. In probate proceedings, considerable latitude is allowed a probate court in
(1999). modifying or revoking its own orders as long as the proceedings are pending in the
11
 44 Phil. 711 (1923). same court and timely applications or motions for such modifications or revocations
12
 Id., at p. 712. are made by the interested parties.18 In the instant case, the estate of the deceased
706 has not yet been settled and the case is still within the jurisdiction of the court.
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED The foregoing discussion renders moot the second issue raised by petitioner. We
Uy vs. Court of Appeals see no cogent reason to set aside the findings of the Court of Appeals, because its
In the instant case, the order of preference was not disregarded by the trial court. findings of fact is conclusive and binding on the parties and not subject to review by
Instead of removing petitioner, it appointed private respondent, a creditor, as co- this Court, unless the case falls under any of the exceptions to the rule.19
administrator since the estate was sizeable and petitioner was having a difficult time WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The August 20, 2004 Decision of the
attending to it alone. In fact, petitioner did not submit any report regarding the estate Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 72678 affirming the January 22, 2002 Order of
under his administration. In its March 16, 2000 Order,13 the trial court found thus: the Regional Trial Court in Special Proceedings No. 97-241, as well as the
“Going over all the arguments of the parties, after hearing has been set relative _______________
17
thereto, this Court has observed that indeed the judicial administrator had not  Id., at pp. 423-424.
18
submitted to the Court any report about the Estate under his administration except  Oñas v. Javillo, 54 Phil. 602, 604 (1930).
19
those involving the cases he filed and/or intervened in other branches. This may be  Siasat v. Court of Appeals, 425 Phil. 139, 145; 374 SCRA 326, 330-331 (2002).
due to his being inexperienced, but this fact will not be reason enough to remove him 708
from the administration of the Estate as Judicial Administrator thereof. However, 708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
considering that the Intervenor is claiming to be the patriarch of the Uy family and Uy vs. Court of Appeals
who claims to have enormous knowledge of the businesses and properties of the April 29, 2005 Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration are AFFIRMED.
decedent Jose K.C. Uy, it is the feeling of this Court that it will be very beneficial to SO ORDERED.
the Estate if he be appointed co-administrator (without removing the already      Panganiban (C.J., Chairperson),  Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and Chico-
appointed Judicial Administrator) of the Estate of Jose K.C. Uy, if only to shed more Nazario, JJ., concur.
light to the alleged enormous properties/businesses and to bring them all to the Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
decedent’s Estate pending before this Court.”14 Note.—A probate court may not decide a question of title of ownership, but it may
A co-administrator performs all the functions and duties and exercises all the powers do so if the interested parties are all heirs, or the question is one of collation or
of a regular administrator, only that he is not alone in the administration. 15 The advancement, or the parties consent to its assumption of jurisdiction and the rights of
practice of appointing co-administrators in estate proceedings is not prohibited. third parties are not impaired. (Munsayac-De Villa vs. Court of Appeals, 414 SCRA
In Gabriel v. Court of Appeals,16 this Court reaffirmed that jurisprudence allows the 436 [2003])
appointment of co-administrators under certain circumstances, to wit: ——o0o——
_______________ © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
13
 Rollo, p. 205.
14
 Id.
15
 De Borja v. Tan, 97 Phil. 872, 874-875 (1955).
16
 G.R. No. 101512, August 7, 1992, 212 SCRA 413.
707
VOL. 484, MARCH 16, 2006 707
Uy vs. Court of Appeals

Page 3 of 3