next of kin, requests to have appointed, if competent

SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS and willing to serve;

5th Batch
(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may
WILSON S. UY, as Judicial Administrator of the be, or next of kin, or the person selected by them, be
Intestate Estate of the Deceased JOSE K. C. UY incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or widow, or
vs. next of kin, neglects for thirty (30) days after the death
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ANASTACIO C. of the person to apply for administration or to request
RUFON that administration be granted to some other person, it
G.R. No. 167979 March 15, 2006 may be granted to one or more of the principal
creditors, if competent and willing to serve;
FACTS:
(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to
Jose K.C. Uy (Deceased) died intestate on August 20, serve, it may be granted to such other person as the
1996 and is survived by his spouse, Sy Iok Ing Uy, and court may select.
his five children, namely, Lilian S. Uy, Lilly S. Uy, Livian S.
Uy-Garcia , Lilen S. Uy and Wilson S. Uy (Petitioner). The order of preference in the appointment of an
Letters of administration were granted to petitioner, administrator depends on the attendant facts and
who took his oath of office as administrator on June 23, circumstances.
1998.
In the instant case, the order of preference was not
On February 17, 1999, Johnny K. H. Uy (Private disregarded by the trial court. Instead of removing
Respondent) filed a motion to intervene, praying that petitioner, it appointed private respondent, a creditor,
he be appointed as administrator of the estate in lieu of as co-administrator since the estate was sizeable and
petitioner. He alleged that he is the brother and a petitioner was having a difficult time attending to it
creditor of the deceased, and has knowledge of the alone. In fact, petitioner did not submit any report
properties that should be included in the estate. The regarding the estate under his administration. In its
Trial Court appointed private respondent as co- March 16, 2000 Order,13 the trial court found thus:
administrator of the estate. The petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration but was denied, he appealed Going over all the arguments of the parties, after
to the CA however it was dismissed. hearing has been set relative thereto, this Court has
observed that indeed the judicial administrator had not
Petitioner asserts that his appointment as a regular submitted to the Court any report about the Estate
administrator is already final, unassailable or res under his administration except those involving the
judicata; that the inferior court has no authority to re- cases he filed and/or intervened in other branches. This
open the issue of the appointment of an administrator may be due to his being inexperienced, but this fact will
without removing the incumbent administrator; that not be reason enough to remove him from the
private respondent is not only alien to the estate, but administration of the Estate as Judicial Administrator
has a conflict of interest with it; that the trial court’s thereof. However, considering that the Intervenor is
appointment of private respondent as co-administrator claiming to be the patriarch of the Uy family and who
constitutes grave abuse of discretion tantamount to claims to have enormous knowledge of the businesses
lack of jurisdiction. and properties of the decedent Jose K.C. Uy, it is the
feeling of this Court that it will be very beneficial to the
ISSUE: Estate if he be appointed co-administrator (without
removing the already appointed Judicial Administrator)
Did the trial Court act with grave abuse of discretion in of the Estate of Jose K.C. Uy, if only to shed more light to
appointing Johnny Uy (private respondent) as co- the alleged enormous properties/businesses and to
administrator to the estate of the deceased? bring them all to the decedent’s Estate pending before
this Court.
RULING:
A co-administrator performs all the functions and duties
NO. Under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, the and exercises all the powers of a regular administrator,
preference to whom letters of administration may be only that he is not alone in the administration. The
granted are as follows: practice of appointing co-administrators in estate
proceedings is not prohibited. The appointment of co-
SEC. 6. When and to whom letters of administration administrators has been upheld for various reasons, viz:
granted. – If no executor is named in the will, or the (1) to have the benefit of their judgment and perhaps at
executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, all times to have different interests represented; (2)
or fail to give bond, or a person dies intestate, where justice and equity demand that opposing parties
administration shall be granted: or factions be represented in the management of the
estate of the deceased; (3) where the estate is large or,
(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may from any cause, an intricate and perplexing one to
be, or next of kin, or both, in the discretion of the court, settle; (4) to have all interested persons satisfied and
or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or the representatives to work in harmony for the best
interests of the estate; and (5) when a person entitled amply proven her kinship Roberto Y. Gabriel, and
to the administration of an estate desires to have therefore her kinship, by operation of law, with
another competent person associated with him in the decedent Crisanta Y. Gabriel. The stringent rules
office. regarding the order of preference in the appointment of
an (regular) Administrator does not find application in
Hence, petitioner’s argument that the trial court cannot the instant case, for what is at stake here is the
re-open the issue of the appointment of an appointment of a Special Administrator as such position
administrator without removing the incumbent was vacated by the death of Roberto, the previously
administrator is erroneous. In probate proceedings, appointed Special Administrator.
considerable latitude is allowed a probate court in
modifying or revoking its own orders as long as the Heirs of Belinda moved to reconsider, which the
proceedings are pending in the same court and timely probate court DENIED.
applications or motions for such modifications or
revocations are made by the interested parties. In the The said heirs then filed with the CA a petition for
instant case, the estate of the deceased has not yet certiorari, praying that Bena Jean be appointed as the
been settled and the case is still within the jurisdiction regular administratrix of Crisanta Gabriel’s estate.
of the court.
CA dismissed the petition, finding that the probate
court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
HEIRS OF CASTILLO V. GABRIEL appointing Dolores as special administratrix.
G.R. No. 162934; 11 November 2005
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Was the appointment of Dolores Gabriel as special
Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel, wife of Lorenzo B. Almoradie administratrix of the estate left by Crisanta Yanga-
(whose marriage was later on declared void for being Gabriel proper?
bigamous) died in Malabon City. She left behind a
sizable inheritance consisting mostly of real estate and HELD:
shares of stock.
Yes, the appointment of Dolores Gabriel as special
Crisanta, the deceased, has 2 children, Belinda administratix was proper.
(legitimate child with ex-husband Lorenzo) and Roberto
(legally adopted son). A special administrator is a representative of a decedent
appointed by the probate court to care for and preserve
Roberto Y. Gabriel, the legally adopted son of the his estate until an executor or general administrator is
deceased, filed a petition for probate of an alleged will appointed.
and for the issuance of letters testamentary in his favor
before the RTC of Malabon City. He alleged that The appointment of a special administrator lies in the
Francisco S. Yanga, brother of the deceased who had sound discretion of the probate court. This discretion,
predeceased the latter, was named executor therein, however, must be sound, that is, not whimsical, or
and he was designated as alternate executor and contrary to reason, justice, equity or legal principle (De
instituted as the testatrix’s sole heir. Guzman v. Guadiz). When appointed, a special
administrator is regarded not as a representative of the
The probate court appointed Roberto Y. Gabriel as agent parties suggesting the appointment, but as the
special administrator of his mother’s estate. administrator in charge of the estate, and in fact, as an
officer of the court. Issuance of such appointment is
When Roberto died, his widow, Dolores Gabriel, filed a only temporary and subsists only until a regular
Manifestation and Motion where she informed the administrator is appointed. The principal object of
probate court of her husband’s death and prayed that appointment of temporary administrator is to preserve
she be admitted as substitute in place of her late the estate until it can pass into hands of person fully
husband, and be appointed as administratrix of the authorized to administer it for the benefit of creditors
estate of Crisanta Gabriel. and heirs, especially that the appointment of
administrators for the estates of decedents frequently
The heirs of Belinda (the legitimate child of Crisanta) become involved in protracted litigations, thereby
opposed Dolores’ manifestation and motion. They exposing such estates to great waste and losses unless
averred that Dolores was not Crisanta Gabriel’s next of an authorized agent to collect the debts and preserve
kin, nor the lawful wife of the late Roberto. Bena Jean, the assets in the interim is appointed.
one of the heirs of Belinda, filed a “Motion for
Appointment as Administrator of the Estate of Crisanta Section 1, Rule 80 of the Revised Rules of Court
Y. Gabriel” praying that she be appointed administratrix provides:
of the estate of her grandmother Crisanta.
Appointment of Special Administrator.—When there is
The lower court appointed Dolores as special delay in granting letters testamentary or of
administratrix and held that Dolores L. Gabriel has administration by any cause including an appeal from
the allowance or disallowance of a will, the court may
appoint a special administrator to take possession and In view of the opposition to the probate of the will by
charge of the estate of the deceased until the questions the respondents, the petitioner was appointed special
causing the delay are decided and executors or
administratrix. The respondents Maria and Pedro Roxas
administrators appointed.
renewed their petition for the appointment of Maria
The new Rules have broadened the basis for Roxas as a special administratrix or special co-
appointment of an administrator, and such adminatrix.
appointment is allowed when there is delay in granting
the letters testamentary or administration by any cause. The respondent judge rendered his resolution
appointing the petitioner as special administratrix only
The basis for appointing a special administrator under of all the conjugal properties of the deceased, and
the Rules is broad enough to include any cause or Maria as special administratrix of all capital or
reason for the delay in granting letters testamentary or
properties belonging exclusively to the deceased Pablo
of administration such as where a contest as to the will
is being carried on in the same or in another court, or M. Roxas.
where there is an appeal pending as to the proceeding
on the removal of an executor or administrator, or in ISSUE:
cases where the parties cannot agree among 1. Does the order of preference applicable to the
themselves (De Guzman v. Guadiz). appointment of the special administrator? (NO)
2. Whether the appointment of two special co-
In this case, the probate court has ample jurisdiction administrators of the estate of the deceased is
(reasons) to appoint respondent as special proper (NO)
administratrix. The deceased Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel left
a will where her adopted son, Roberto, was named as
RULING: 
the sole heir and executor of all her properties.
However, pending probate of the will, Roberto died
1. It is well settled that the statutory provisions as
leaving his widow, the respondent herein, as his sole
to the prior or preferred right of certain persons
heir. Thus, the respondent has much stake in Crisanta’s
to the appointment of administrator under
estate in case the latter’s will is allowed probate.
section 1, Rule 81, as well as the statutory
provisions as to causes for removal of an
The SC emphasized that in the appointment of a special
executor or administrator under section 653 of
administrator, the probate court does not determine
Act No. 190, now section 2, Rule 83, do not
the shares in the decedent’s estate, but merely
apply to the selection or removal of special
appoints who is entitled to administer the estate. The
administrator. (21 Am. Jur., 833; De Gala vs.
issue of heirship is one to be determined in the decree
Gonzales and Ona, 53 Phil., 104, 106.)
of distribution, and the findings of the court on the
relationship of the parties in the administration as to be
As the law does not say who shall be appointed
the basis of distribution.
as special administrator and the qualifications
the appointee must have, the judge or court has
Thus, the preference of respondent Dolores is sound,
discretion in the selection of the person to be
that is, not whimsical, or contrary to reason, justice,
appointed, discretion which must be sound,
equity or legal principle.
that is, not whimsical or contrary to reason,
justice or equity.

NATIVIDAD I. VDA. DE ROXAS VS. POTENCIANO

2. No. There is absolutely no reason for appointing
PECSON, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN,
two separate administrators, especially if the
MARIA ROXAS AND PEDRO ROXAS
estate to be settled is that of a deceased
G.R. No. L-2211, December 20, 1948
husband as in the present case.

FACTS: 
If two separate administrators are appointed as
Pablo M. Roxas died leaving properties in Bulacan. The
done in the present case, in every action which
other respondents Maria and Pedro Roxas, sister and
one of them may institute to recover properties
brother of the deceased, filed a petition for the
or credit of the deceased, the defendant may
administration of the estate in special intestate
raise the question or set up the defense that
proceeding and Maria Roxas was appointed special
the plaintiff has no cause of action because the
administrix upon an ex-parte petition. The petitioner
property or credit in issue belongs to the class
Natividad Vela, de Roxas, widow of Pablo M. Roxas,
which is being administered by the other
filed a petition for the probate of an alleged will of her
administrator, which cannot be done if the
deceased husband, and for her appointment as
administrator of the entire estate is only one.
executrix of his estate designated in said will with the
same court.
 If there are two administrators there will be RTC denied Absolute Management Corporation’s
conflict with respect to the judgment of each motion. CA reversed RTC’s ruling. The CA pointed out
administrator and the such set up will be more that the presentation of the deeds of assignment
confusing on the part of the creditors of the executed by the decedent in petitioners favor does not
estate. automatically negate the existence of concealment. The
appellate court stated that it is a common occurrence in
estate proceedings for heirs to execute simulated deeds
Hence, respondent judge acted in excess of the of transfer which conceal and place properties of the
court's jurisdiction in appointing two separate decedent beyond the reach of creditors.
special administratices of the estate of the
decedent: one of the conjugal or community ISSUE:
property and another of the capital or exclusive
property of the deceased Pablo M. Roxas. Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly ordered
the trial court to give due course to the Motion for
Examination.
BETTY T. CHUA, JENNIFER T. CHUA-LOCSIN, BENISON T.
CHUA, AND BALDWIN T. CHUA V. ABSOLUTE RULING:
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION AND COURT OF
APPEALS Yes. Section 6, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court provides:
G. R. NO. 144881 OCTOBER 16, 2003
SEC. 6. Proceedings when property concealed,
FACTS: embezzled, or fraudulently conveyed. If an executor or
administrator, heir, legatee, creditor, or other individual
Sometime in 1999, upon a petition for letters of interested in the estate of the deceased, complains to
administration filed by herein petitioners Jennifer T. the court having jurisdiction of the estate that a person
Chua-Locsin, Benison T. Chua, and Baldwin T. Chua, is suspected of having concealed, embezzled, or
Betty T. Chua was appointed as administratrix of the conveyed away any of the money, goods, or chattels of
intestate estate of the deceased Jose L. Chua. the deceased, or that such person has in his possession
Thereafter, she submitted to the trial court an inventory or has knowledge of any deed, conveyance, bond,
of all the real and personal properties of the deceased. contract, or other writing which contains evidence of or
One of the creditors of the deceased, herein tends to disclose the right, title, interest, or claim of the
respondent Absolute Management Corporation, filed a deceased, the court may cite such suspected person to
claim on the estate in the amount of P63,699,437.74. As appear before it and may examine him on oath on the
administratrix, Betty T. Chua tentatively accepted said matter of such complaint; and if the person so cited
amount as correct, with a statement that it shall be refuses to appear, or to answer on such examination or
reduced or adjusted as additional evidences [sic] may such interrogatories as are put to him, the court may
warrant. punish him for contempt, and may commit him to
prison until he submits to the order of the court. The
In the interim, Absolute Management Corporation interrogatories put to any such person, and his answers
noticed that the deceased’s shares of stocks with Ayala thereto, shall be in writing and shall be filed in the
Sales Corporation and Ayala Construction Supply, Inc. clerks office.
were not included in the inventory of assets. As a
consequence, it filed a motion to require Betty T. Chua Section 6 of Rule 87 seeks to secure evidence from
to explain why she did not report these shares of stocks persons suspected of having possession or knowledge
in the inventory. Betty T. Chua alleged that these shares of the properties left by a deceased person, or of having
had already been assigned and transferred to other concealed, embezzled or conveyed any of the
parties prior to the death of her husband, Jose L. Chua. properties of the deceased.
She attached to her reply the deeds of assignment
which allegedly constituted proofs of transfer. The court which acquires jurisdiction over the
properties of a deceased person through the filing of
Absolute Management Corporation, suspecting that the the corresponding proceedings has supervision and
documents attached to Betty T. Chuas reply were control over these properties. The trial court has the
spurious and simulated, filed a motion for the inherent duty to see to it that the inventory of the
examination of the supposed transferees. It premised administrator lists all the properties, rights and credits
its motion on Section 6, Rule 87, Revised Rules of Court, which the law requires the administrator to include in
which states that when a person is suspected of having his inventory. In compliance with this duty, the court
concealed, embezzled, or conveyed away any of the also has the inherent power to determine what
properties of the deceased, a creditor may file a properties, rights and credits of the deceased the
complaint with the trial court and the trial court may administrator should include or exclude in the
cite the suspected person to appear before it and be inventory. An heir or person interested in the properties
examined under oath on the matter of such complaint. of a deceased may call the courts attention that certain
properties, rights or credits are left out from the
inventory. In such a case, it is likewise the courts duty to
hear the observations of such party. The court has the
power to determine if such observations deserve the administrator. The petitioners opposed said
attention and if such properties belong prima facie to decision on the ground that private respondents were
the estate. no longer studying, that they have attained the age of
majority, that all of them except for Miguel are gainfully
However, in such proceedings the trial court has no employed, and the administrator did not have sufficient
authority to decide whether the properties, real or funds to cover the said expenses.
personal, belong to the estate or to the persons Before the Supreme Court could act on saod petition,
examined. If after such examination there is good the private respondents filed another motion for
reason to believe that the person examined is keeping allowance with the CFI-Cavite which included Juanita,
properties belonging to the estate, then the Estelita and Pedrito, all surnamed Santero, as children
administrator should file an ordinary action in court to of the late Pablo Santero with Anselma Diaz, praying
recover the same. Inclusion of certain shares of stock by that a sum of Php 6,000.00 be given to each of the
the administrator in the inventory does not seven children as their allowance from the estate of
automatically deprive the assignees of their shares. their father. This was granted by the CFI-Cavite.
They have a right to be heard on the question of Later on, the CFI-Cavite issued an amended order
ownership, when that property is properly presented to directing Anselma Diaz, mother of private respondents,
the court. to submit a clarification or explanation as to the
additional three children included in the said motion.
In the present case, some of the transferees of the She said in her clarification that in her previous motions,
shares of stock do not appear to be heirs of the only the last four minor children were included for
decedent. Neither do they appear to be parties to the support and the three children were then of age should
intestate proceedings. Third persons to whom the have been included since all her children have the right
decedents assets had been conveyed may be cited to to receive allowance as advance payment of their
appear in court and examined under oath as to how shares in the inheritance of Pablo Santero. The CFI-
they came into possession of the decedents assets. In Cavite issued an order directing the administrator to get
case of fraudulent conveyances, a separate action is back the allowance of the three additional children
necessary to recover these assets. based on the opposition of the petitioners.
ISSUE:
Taken in this light, there is no reason why the trial court (1)Whether or not the private respondents entitled to
should disallow the examination of the alleged allowance?
transferees of the shares of stocks. This is only for HELD:
purposes of eliciting information or securing evidence Yes, they are entitled. Being of age, gainfully employed,
from persons suspected of concealing or conveying or married should not be regarded as the determining
some of the decedents properties to the prejudice of factor to their right to allowance under Articles 290 and
creditors. Petitioners admission that these persons are 188 of the New Civil Code.
the decedents assignees does not automatically negate The fact that private respondents are of age, gainfully
concealment of the decedents assets on their part. The employed, or married is of no moment and should not
assignment might be simulated so as to place the shares be regarded as the determining factor of their right to
beyond the reach of creditors. In case the shares are allowance under Art. 188. While the Rules of Court limit
eventually included in the estate, this inventory is allowances to the widow and minor or incapacitated
merely provisional and is not determinative of the issue children of the deceased, the New Civil Code gives the
of ownership. A separate action is necessary for surviving spouse and his/her children without
determination of ownership and recovery of possession. distinction. Hence, the private respondents Victor,
Rodrigo, Anselmina and Miguel all surnamed Santero
are entitled to allowances as advances from their shares
SANTERO VS. CFI OF CAVITE in the inheritance from their father Pablo Santero. Since
G.R. No. L-61700, Sep. 14, 1987 the provision of the Civil Code, a substantive law, gives
FACTS: the surviving spouse and to the children the right to
Pablo Santero, the only legitimate son of Pascual and receive support during the liquidation of the estate of
Simona Santero, had three children with Felixberta the deceased, such right cannot be impaired by Rule 83
Pacursa namely, Princesita, Federico and Willie (herein Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court which is a procedural rule.
petitioners). He also had four children with Anselma Be it noted however that with respect to "spouse," the
Diaz namely, Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina, and Miguel same must be the "legitimate spouse" (not common-
(herein private respondents). These children are all law spouses who are the mothers of the children here).
natural children since neither of their mothers was Records show that a hearing was made. Moreover,
married to their father. In 1973, Pablo Santero died. what the said court did was just to follow the precedent
During the pendency of the administration proceedings of the court which granted previous allowance and that
with the CFI-Cavite involving the estate of the late Pablo the petitioners and private respondents only received
Santero, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with Php 1,500.00 each depending on the availability of
the Supreme Court questioning the decision of CFI- funds.
Cavite granting allowance (allegedly without hearing) in
the amount of Php 2,000.00, to private respondents
which includes tuition fees, clothing materials and ESTATE OF HILARIO M. RUIZ V. CA
subsistence out of any available funds in the hands of GR NO. 118671, JANUARY 29, 1996
FACTS:
Hilario M. Ruiz executed a holographic will naming as The probate court denied petitioner’s motion for
his heirs his only son, Edmond Ruiz, his adopted release of funds but granted respondent Montes’
daughter, private respondent Maria Pilar Ruiz Montes, motion in view of petitioner’s lack of opposition. It thus
and his three granddaughters, private respondents ordered the release of the rent payments to the
Maria Cathryn, Candice Albertine and Maria Angeline, decedent’s three granddaughters. It further ordered the
all children of Edmond Ruiz. delivery of the titles to and possession of the properties
The testator bequeathed to his heirs substantial cash, bequeathed to the three granddaughters and
personal and real properties and named Edmond Ruiz respondent Montes upon the filing of a bond of
executor of his estate. P50,000.00.

When Hilario died, the cash component of his estate Petitioner moved for reconsideration alleging that he
was distributed among Edmond and private actually filed his opposition to respondent Montes’
respondents in accordance with the decedent’s will. motion for release of rent payments which opposition
However, Edmond did not take any action for the the court failed to consider.
probate of his father’s holographic will.
Petitioner, through counsel, manifested that he was
Four years after the testator’s death, it was private withdrawing his motion for release of funds in view of
respondent Maria Pilar who filed a petition for the the fact that the lease contract over Valle Verde
probate and approval of the will and for the issuance of property had been renewed for another
letters testamentary to Edmond but the latter opposed year.
the petition on the ground that the will was executed
under undue influence. Despite petitioner’s manifestation, the probate court,
on December 22, 1993, ordered the release of the funds
One of the properties of the estate - the house and lot to Edmond but only "such amount as may be necessary
which the testator bequeathed to Maria Cathryn, to cover the expenses of administration and allowances
Candice Albertine and Maria Angeline was leased out by for support" of the testator’s three granddaughters
Edmond Ruiz to third persons. subject to collation and deductible from their share in
the inheritance. The court, however, held in abeyance
The probate court ordered Edmond to deposit with the the release of the titles to respondent Montes and the
Branch Clerk of Court the rental deposit and payments three granddaughters until the lapse of six months from
totalling P540,000.00 representing the one-year lease of the date of First publication of the notice to creditors
the Valle Verde property.
ISSUES:
In compliance, Edmond turned over the amount of Whether the probate court, after admitting the will to
P348,583.56, representing the balance of the rent after probate but before payment of the estate’s debts and
deducting P191,416.14 for repair and maintenance obligations, has the authority:
expenses on the estate. (1) to grant an allowance from the funds of the estate
for the support of the testator’s grandchildren;
Edmond moved for the release of P50,000.00 to pay the (2) to order the release of the titles to certain heirs; and
real estate taxes on the real properties of the estate. (3) to grant possession of all properties of the estate to
The probate court approved the release of P7,722.00. the executor of the will.

Edmond withdrew his opposition to the probate of the HELD:

will. Consequently, the probate court, on May 18, 1993, (1)No
admitted the will to probate and ordered the issuance Section 3 of Rule 83 of the Revised Rules of Court
of letters testamentary to Edmond conditioned upon provides:
the filing of a bond in the amount of P50,000.00. The "Sec. 3. Allowance to widow and family. - The widow
letters testamentary were issued on June 23, 1993. and minor or incapacitated children of a deceased
person, during the settlement of the estate, shall
Petitioner Testate Estate of Hilario Ruiz as executor, receive therefrom under the direction of the court, such
filed an "Ex-Parte Motion for Release of Funds." It allowance as are provided by law."
prayed for the release of the rent payments deposited Grandchildren are not entitled to provisional support
with the Branch Clerk of Court. from the funds of the decedent’s estate. The law clearly
limits the allowance to "widow and children" and does
Respondent Montes opposed the motion and not extend it to the
concurrently filed a "Motion for Release of Funds to deceased’s grandchildren, regardless of their minority
Certain Heirs" and Motion for Issuance of Certificate of or incapacity. It was error, therefore, for the appellate
Allowance of Probate Will." Montes prayed for the court to sustain the probate court’s order granting an
release of the said rent payments to Maria Cathryn, allowance to the grandchildren of the testator pending
Candice Albertine and Maria Angeline and for the settlement of his estate.
distribution of the testator’s properties, specifically the
Valle Verde property and the Blue Ridge apartments, in (2) No
accordance with the provisions of the holographic will.
Respondent courts also erred when they ordered the of the estate. If not yet paid, the rule requires that the
release of the titles of the bequeathed properties to distributees post a bond or make such provisions as to
private respondents six months after the date of first meet the said tax obligation in proportion to their
publication of notice to creditors. An order releasing respective shares in the inheritance. Notably, at the
titles to properties of the estate amounts to an advance time the order was issued the properties of the estate
distribution of the estate which is allowed only under had not yet been inventoried and appraised.
the following conditions:
"Sec. 2. Advance distribution in special proceedings. - It was also too early in the day for the probate court to
Nothwithstanding a pending controversy or appeal in order the release of the titles six months after admitting
proceedings to settle the estate of a decedent, the court the will to probate. The probate of a will is conclusive as
may, in its discretion and upon such terms as it may to its due execution and extrinsic validity and settles
deem proper and just, permit that such part of the only the question of whether the testator, being of
estate as may not be affected by the controversy or sound mind, freely executed it in accordance with the
appeal be distributed among the heirs or formalities prescribed by law. Questions as to the
legatees, upon compliance with the conditions set forth intrinsic validity and efficacy of the provisions of the
in Rule 90 of these Rules." will, the legality of any devise or legacy may be raised
even after the will has been authenticated.
And Rule 90 provides that:
"Sec. 1. When order for distribution of residue made. - (3) No
When the debts, funeral charges, and expenses of Petitioner cannot correctly claim that the assailed order
administration, the allowance to the widow, and deprived him of his right to take possession of all the
inheritance tax, if any, chargeable to the estate in real and personal properties of the estate. The right of
accordance with law, have been paid, the court, on the an executor or administrator to the possession and
application of the executor or administrator, or of a management of the real and personal properties of the
person interested in the estate, and after hearing upon deceased is not absolute and can only be exercised "so
notice, shall assign the residue of the estate to the long as it is necessary for the payment of the debts and
persons entitled to the same, naming them and the expenses of administration,"
proportions, or parts, to which each is entitled, and
such persons may demand and recover their respective  Section 3 of Rule 84 of the Revised Rules of Court
shares from the executor or administrator, or any other explicitly provides:
person having the same in his possession. If there is a "Sec. 3. Executor or administrator to retain whole
controversy before the court as to who are the lawful estate to pay debts, and to administer estate not willed.
heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive - An executor or administrator shall have the right to
shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the possession and management of the real as well as
the controversy shall be heard and decided as in the personal estate of the deceased so long as it is
ordinary cases. necessary for the payment of the debts and expenses
for administration."
No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of
the obligations above-mentioned has been made or When petitioner moved for further release of the funds
provided for, unless the distributees, or any of them, deposited with the clerk of court, he had been
give a bond, in a sum to be fixed by the court, previously granted by the probate court certain
conditioned for the payment of said obligations within amounts for repair and maintenance expenses on the
such time as the court directs. properties of the estate, and payment of the real estate
taxes thereon. But petitioner moved again for the
In settlement of estate proceedings, the distribution of release of additional funds for the same reasons he
the estate properties can only be made: (1) after all the previously cited. It was correct for the probate court to
debts, funeral charges, expenses of administration, require him to submit an accounting of the necessary
allowance to the widow, and estate tax have been paid; expenses for administration before releasing any
or (2) before payment of said obligations only if the further money in his favor.
distributees or any of them gives a bond in a sum fixed
by the court conditioned upon the payment of said It was relevantly noted by the probate court that
obligations within such time as the court directs, or petitioner had deposited with it only a portion of the
when provision is made to meet those obligations. one-year rental income from the Valle Verde property.
Petitioner did not deposit its succeeding rents after
In the case at bar, the probate court ordered the renewal of the lease. Neither did he render an
release of the titles to the Valle Verde property and the accounting of such funds.
Blue Ridge apartments to the private respondents after
the lapse of six months from the date of first publication Petitioner must be reminded that his right of ownership
of the notice to creditors. The questioned order speaks over the properties of his father is merely inchoate as
of "notice" to creditors, not payment of debts and long as the estate has not been fully settled and
obligations. Hilario Ruiz allegedly left no debts when he partitioned. As executor, he is a mere trustee of his
died but the taxes on his estate had not hitherto been father’s estate. The funds of the estate in his hands are
paid, much less ascertained. The estate tax is one of trust funds and he is held to the duties and
those obligations that must be paid before distribution responsibilities of a trustee of the highest order.
He cannot unilaterally assign to himself and possess all
his parents’ properties and the fruits thereof without
first submitting an inventory and appraisal of all real
and personal properties of the deceased, rendering a
true account of his administration, the expenses of
administration, the amount of the obligations and
estate tax, all of which are subject to a determination by
the court as to their veracity, propriety and justness.