Professional Documents
Culture Documents
De Guzman
De Guzman
The
court may also have jurisdiction over the “estate” of the deceased person
No. L-78590. June 20, 1988.* but the determination of the properties comprising that estate must follow
established rules. Section 3, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court
PEDRO DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE
provides: “Court to set time for hearing.—Notice thereof.—When a petition
ZOSIMO Z. ANGELES, RTC BRANCH 58, MAKATI, METRO MANILA;
for letters of administration is filed in the court having jurisdiction, such
DEPUTY SHERIFFS JOSE B. FLORA and HONORIO SANTOS; and
court shall fix a time and place for hearing the petition, and shall cause
ELAINE G. DE GUZMAN, respondents.
notice thereof to be given to the known heirs and creditors of the
Civil Procedure; Probate of will; Jurisdiction; Facts to be alleged in the decedent, and to any other persons believed to have an interest in the
application before a court may acquire jurisdiction over the case for estate, in the manner provided in sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76.”
probate of will.—As early as March 18, 1937, in the case of Santos v.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Probate court must cause notice through
Castillo (64 Phil. 211) we ruled that before a court may acquire
publication of the petition after receiving the same otherwise the
jurisdiction over the case for the probate of a will and the administration
proceeding for the settlement of the estate is void and should be annulled.
of the properties left by a deceased person, the application must allege
—It is very clear from this provision that the probate court must cause
the residence of the deceased and other indispensable facts or
notice through publication of the petition after it receives the same. The
circumstances and that the applicant is the executor named in the will or
purpose of this notice is to bring all the interested persons within the
is the person who had custody of the will to be probated.
court’s jurisdiction so that the judgment therein becomes binding on all
Same; Same; Same; Court had acquired jurisdiction over the proceedings the world. (Manalo v. Paredes, 47 Phil. 938; Moran, Comment on the
in the instant case.—In the instant case, there is no doubt that the Rules of Court Volume 3, 1980 Edition) Where no notice as required by
respondent court acquired jurisdiction over the proceedings upon the filing Section 3, Rule 79 of the Rules of Court has been given to persons
of a petition for the settlement of an intestate estate by the private believed to have an interest in the estate of the deceased person; the
respondent since the petition had alleged all the jurisdictional facts, the proceeding for the settlement of the estate is void and should be annulled.
residence of the deceased person, the possible heirs and creditors and the The requirement as to notice is essential to the validity of the proceeding
probable value of the estate of the deceased Manolito de Guzman in order that no person may be deprived of his right to property without
pursuant to Section 2, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court. due process of law.
Same; Same; Same; Need to differentiate between jurisdiction of the Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Notice through publication of the
probate court over the proceedings for the administration of an estate and petition is jurisdictional.—Verily, notice through publication of the petition
its jurisdiction over the persons interested in the settlement of the estate for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person is jurisdictional, the
of the deceased person.—We must, however, differentiate between the absence of which makes court orders affecting other persons, subsequent
jurisdiction of the probate court over the proceedings for the to the petition void and subject to annulment.
administration of an estate and its jurisdiction over the persons who are
Page 1 of 8
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; No notice was caused to be Guzman. Hence, the necessity of notice as mandated by the Rules of
given by the probate court in the instant case.—In the instant case, no Court. It is not clear from the records exactly what emergency would have
notice as mandated by section 3, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court ensued if the appointment of an administrator was deferred at least until
was caused to be given by the probate court before it acted on the the most interested parties were given notice of the proposed action. No
motions of the private respondent to be appointed as special unavoidable delay in the appointment of a regular administrator is
administratrix, to issue a writ of possession of alleged properties of the apparent from the records.
deceased person in the widow’s favor, and to grant her motion for
assistance to preserve the estate of Manolito de Guzman. PETITION to review the orders of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Br.
58. Angeles, J.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Explanation of
respondent Judge while seemingly plausible does not sufficiently explain
the disregard of the Rule.—The “explanation” which we required of the
The facts are stated in the Opinion of the Court.
respondent Judge for his apparent haste in issuing the questioned orders,
states: xxx xxx xxx “10. In issuing the subject Orders, undersigned acted Bautista, Picazo, Cruz, Buyco and Tan for private respondent.
in the honest conviction that it would be to the best interest of the estate
without unduly prejudicing any party or third person. Any delay in issuing Ponce Enrile, Cayetano, Bautista, Picaso and Reyes, collaborating
the said Orders might have prejudiced the estate for the properties may counsel for private respondent.
be lost, wasted or dissipated in the meantime.” (Rollo, p. 86) xxx xxx xxx
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
This explanation while seemingly plausible does not sufficiently explain the
disregard of the Rule. If indeed, the respondent court had the welfare of
both the estate and the persons who have interest in the estate, then it
could have caused notice to be given immediately as mandated by the May a probate court act on and/or grant motions for the appointment of a
Revised Rules of Court. All interested persons including herein petitioner special administrator, for the issuance of a writ of possession of alleged
who is the biggest creditor of the estate listed in the petition properties of the deceased person, and for assistance to preserve the
(P850,240.80) could have participated in the proceedings especially so, estate in a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate even before
because the respondent immediately filed a motion to have herself the court has caused notice to be served upon all interested parties
appointed as administratrix. A special administrator has been defined as pursuant to section 3, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court?
the “representative of decedent appointed by the probate court to care for
and preserve his estate until an executor or general administrator is On May 5, 1987, private respondent Elaine G. de Guzman filed a petition
appointed.” (Jones v. Minnesota Transfer R. Co. 1965 ed., at 106 cited in for the settlement of the intestate estate of Manolito de Guzman before
Fule v. Court of Appeals, 74 SCRA 189). The petitioner as creditor of the the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila. The case was docketed
estate has a similar interest in the preservation of the estate as the as Special Proceedings No. M-1436.
private respondent who happens to be the widow of deceased Manolito de
Page 2 of 8
The petition alleges that: (1) on March 22, 1987, Manolito de Guzman three (3) days from May 27, 1987 to give his comment on the motion for
died in Makati, Metro Manila; (2) at the time of his death, the decedent a writ of possession. The hearing was reset to June 5, 1987 at 3:00 p.m.
was a resident of Makati, Metro Manila; (3) decedent left personal and real
properties as part of his estate, listed in Annexes “A,” “B,” “C” and “D;” On May 29, 1987, the petitioner’s counsel filed a notice of appearance and
(4) the properties were acquired after the marriage of the petitioner to the an “Urgent Motion For Extension of Time to File an Opposition and for
decedent and therefore are included in their conjugal partnership; (5) the Resetting of the Hearing.” The motion was granted and the petitioner was
estate of the decedent has a probable net value which may be given five (5) days from receipt of the order within which to file his
provisionally assessed at P4,000,000.00 more or less; (6) the possible opposition to the motion for a writ of possession. The hearing was reset to
creditors of the estate, who have accounts payable and existing claims June 15, 1987 at 2:00 in the afternoon.
against the firm—C. Santos Construction are listed in Annex “E;” (7) the
In the meantime, on May 28, 1987, the private respondent filed her “Ex-
compulsory heirs of the decedent are the petitioner as the surviving
Parte Motion to Appoint Petitioner as Special Administratrix of the Estate
spouse and their two (2) minor children namely: Charmane Rose de
of Manolito de Guzman.”
Guzman, 11 years and Peter Brian de Guzman, 9 years old; (8) after
diligent search and inquiry to ascertain whether the decedent left a last In an order dated May 28, 1987, the aforesaid motion was set for hearing
will and testament, none has been found and according to the best on June 5, 1987. In this same order, the lower court directed that all
knowledge information and belief of the petitioner, Manolito de Guzman parties in the case be notified. However, no notice of the order was given
died intestate; and (9) the petitioner as the surviving spouse of the to the petitioner.
decedent, is most qualified and entitled to the grant of letters of
administration. In an order dated June 5, 1987, the lower court granted the private
respondent’s motion to be appointed as special administratrix, to wit:
On May 22, 1987, the private respondent filed a motion for writ of
possession over five (5) vehicles registered under the name of Manolito de “Finding the motion for appointment of special administratrix, on the
Guzman, alleged to be conjugal properties of the de Guzmans but which ground alleged therein to be well-founded, and finding further that it is to
are at present in the possession of the private respondent’s father-in-law, be the best interest of the Estate of Manolito de Guzman that petitioner-
herein petitioner Pedro de Guzman. The motion stated that as co-owner movant Elaine G. de Guzman, be appointed as Special Administratrix in
and heir, the private respondent must have the possession of said vehicles this case, said motion is granted.
in order to preserve the assets of her late husband. On the same day, the
“WHEREFORE, Elaine G. de Guzman, petitioner-movant, is hereby
lower court issued an order setting for hearing the motion on May 27,
appointed as Special Administratrix of the Estate of the deceased Manolito
1987 directing the deputy sheriff to notify petitioner Pedro de Guzman at
de Guzman, pending appointment of a regular administrator. The bond for
the expense of the private respondent.
the said special administratrix is hereby fixed in the amount of
The scheduled May 27, 1987 hearing was postponed on motion of P200,000.00.” (Rollo, p. 40)
petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Ricardo Fojas. The petitioner was also given
On June 8, 1987, the lower court issued another order, to wit:
Page 3 of 8
“Acting on the Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Assistance’ filed by Petitioner- In a resolution dated June 10, 1987, we issued a temporary restraining
Special Administratrix Elaine de Guzman for appointment of Deputy order enjoining the respondent court from enforcing the two questioned
Sheriffs Honorio Santos and Jose B. Flora together with some militarymen orders. In another resolution dated October 28, 1987, we gave due course
and/or policemen to assist her in preserving the estate of Manolito de to the petition.
Guzman, the motion is granted and the Deputy Sheriffs Honorio Santos
and Jose B. Flora are hereby appointed for that purpose, provided that the The petitioner contends that the June 5, 1987 order is a patent nullity, the
subject matter of the motion for writ of possession pending before this respondent court not having acquired jurisdiction to appoint a special
Court shall not be affected.” (Rollo, p. 41) administratrix because the petition for the settlement of the estate of
Manolito de Guzman was not yet set for hearing and published for three
Trouble ensued when the respondents tried to enforce the above order. consecutive weeks, as mandated by the Rules of Court. The petitioner also
The petitioner resisted when Deputy Sheriffs Jose B. Flora and Honorio stresses that the appointment of a special administratrix constitutes an
Santos tried to take the subject vehicles on the ground that they were his abuse of discretion for having been made without giving petitioner and
personal properties. According to the petitioner, this resulted in a “near other parties an opportunity to oppose said appointment.
shoot-out between members of the Makati Police, who were to maintain
peace and order, and the CAPCOM soldiers who were ostensibly aiding Anent the June 8, 1987 order, the petitioner alleges that the immediate
respondent sheriffs and Elaine G. de Guzman” and that “the timely arrival grant of the motion praying for the court’s assistance in the preservation
of Mayor Jejomar Binay of Makati defused the very volatile situation which of the estate of the deceased, “without notice to the petitioner Pedro de
resulted in an agreement between the parties that the bulldozer, sought Guzman, and its immediate implementation on the very same day by
to be taken, be temporarily placed in the custody of Mayor Binay, while respondent Elaine G. de Guzman with the assistance of respondents
the parties seek clarification of the order from respondent Judge Zosimo deputy sheriffs, at no other place but at the home of the petitioner Pedro
Angeles the next day, June 9, 1981 at 10:30 a.m.” de Guzman, are eloquent proofs that all the antecedent events were
intended solely to deprive petitioner de Guzman of his property without
In the conference held before the respondent court attended bythe due process of law.” He also prays that the respondent Judge be
counsels for both parties, the June 8, 1987 order was clarified to the effect disqualified from further continuing the case.
that the order “must be merely to take and preserve assets admittedly
belonging to the estate, but not properties, the ownership of which is As stated earlier, the pivotal issue in the instant petition hinges on
claimed by third persons.” whether or not a probate court may appoint a special administratrix and
issue a writ of possession of alleged properties of a decedent for the
The petitioner then filed a manifestation listing properties which he preservation of the estate in a petition for the settlement of the intestate
claimed to be his own. estate of the said deceased person even before the probate court causes
notice to be served upon all interested parties pursuant to section 3, Rule
Thereafter, the instant petition was filed to annul the lower court’s orders 79 of the Revised Rules of Court.
dated June 5, 1987 and June 8, 1987.
Page 4 of 8
As early as March 18, 1937, in the case of Santos v. Castillo (64 Phil. 211) court’s jurisdiction so that the judgment therein becomes binding on all
we ruled that before a court may acquire jurisdiction over the case for the the world. (Manalo v. Paredes, 47 Phil. 938; Moran, Comment on the
probate of a will and the administration of the properties left by a Rules of Court Volume 3, 1980 Edition) Where no notice as required by
deceased person, the application must allege the residence of the Section 3, Rule 79 of the Rules of Court has been given to persons
deceased and other indispensable facts or circumstances and that the believed to have an interest in the estate of the deceased person; the
applicant is the executor named in the will or is the person who had proceeding for the settlement of the estate is void and should be annulled.
custody of the will to be probated. The requirement as to notice is essential to the validity of the proceeding
in order that no person may be deprived of his right to property without
In the instant case, there is no doubt that the respondent court acquired due process of law. (Eusebio v. Valmores, 96 Phil. 163).
jurisdiction over the proceedings upon the filing of a petition for the
settlement of an intestate estate by the private respondent since the Verily, notice through publication of the petition for the settlement of the
petition had alleged all the jurisdictional facts, the residence of the estate of a deceased person is jurisdictional, the absence of which makes
deceased person, the possible heirs and creditors and the probable value court orders affecting other persons, subsequent to the petition void and
of the estate of the deceased Manolito de Guzman pursuant to Section 2, subject to annulment. (See Eusebio v. Valmores, supra)
Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court.
In the instant case, no notice as mandated by section 3, Rule 79 of the
We must, however, differentiate between the jurisdiction of the probate Revised Rules of Court was caused to be given by the probate court before
court over the proceedings for the administration of an estate and its it acted on the motions of the private respondent to be appointed as
jurisdiction over the persons who are interested in the settlement of the special administratrix, to issue a writ of possession of alleged properties of
estate of the deceased person. The court may also have jurisdiction over the deceased person in the widow’s favor, and to grant her motion for
the “estate” of the deceased person but the determination of the assistance to preserve the estate of Manolito de Guzman.
properties comprising that estate must follow established rules. Section 3,
Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: The “explanation” which we required of the respondent Judge for his
apparent haste in issuing the questioned orders, states:
“Court to set time for hearing.—Notice thereof.—When a petition for
letters of administration is filed in the court having jurisdiction, such court xxx xxx xxx
shall fix a time and place for hearing the petition, and shall cause notice
“10. In issuing the subject Orders, undersigned acted in the honest
thereof to be given to the known heirs and creditors of the decedent, and
conviction that it would be to the best interest of the estate without
to any other persons believed to have an interest in the estate, in the
unduly prejudicing any interested party or third person. Any delay in
manner provided in sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76.”
issuing the said Orders might have prejudiced the estate for the properties
It is very clear from this provision that the probate court must cause may be lost, wasted or dissipated in the meantime.” (Rollo, p. 86)
notice through publication of the petition after it receives the same. The
xxx xxx xxx
purpose of this notice is to bring all the interested persons within the
Page 5 of 8
This explanation while seemingly plausible does not sufficiently explain the “In order to fully and correctly ascertain the suitability of the applicant to
disregard of the Rule. If indeed, the respondent court had the welfare of the trust, a hearing is obviously necessary wherein the applicant can
both the estate and the person who have interest in the estate, then it prove his qualifications and at the same time affording oppositors, given
could have caused notice to be given immediately as mandated by the notice of such hearing and application, the opportunity to oppose or
Revised Rules of Court. All interested persons including herein petitioner contest such application.
who is the biggest creditor of the estate listed in the petition
(P850,240.80) could have participated in the proceedings especially so, “ ‘The requirement of a hearing and the notification to all the known heirs
because the respondent immediately filed a motion to have herself and other interested parties as to the date thereof is essential to the
appointed as administratrix. A special administrator has been defined as validity of the proceeding for the appointment of an administrator ‘in order
the “representative of decedent appointed by the probate court to care for that no person may be deprived of his right or property without due
and preserve his estate until an executor or general administrator is process of law’ (Eusebio v. Valmores, 97 Phil. 163). Moreover, a hearing is
appointed.” (Jones v. Minnesota Transfer R. Co. 1965 ed., at 106 cited in necessary in order to fully determine the suitability of the applicant to the
Fule v. Court of Appeals, 74 SCRA 189). The petitioner as creditor of the trust, by giving him the opportunity to prove his qualifications and
estate has a similar interest in the preservation of the estate as the affording oppositors, if any, to contest the said application. (Matute v.
private respondent who happens to be the widow of deceased Manolito de Court of Appeals, 26 SCRA 770; italics supplied).
Guzman. Hence, the necessity of notice as mandated by the Rules of
“Since the position of special administrator is a very sensitive one which
Court. It is not clear from the records exactly what emergency would have
requires trust and confidence, it is essential that the suitability of the
ensued if the appointment of an administrator was deferred at least until
applicant be ascertained in a hearing with due notice to all oppositors who
the most interested parties were given notice of the proposed action. No
may object precisely to the applicant’s suitability to the trust.” (Rollo, pp.
unavoidable delay in the appointment of a regular administrator is
103-104)
apparent from the records.
If emergency situations threatening the dissipation of the assets of an
As argued by the petitioner:
estate justify a court’s immediately taking some kind of temporary action
“The position of special administrator, by the very nature of the powers even without the required notice, no such emergency is shown in this
granted thereby, is one of trust and confidence. It is a fiduciary position case. The need for the proper notice even for the appointment of a special
and, therefore, requires a comprehensive determination of the suitability administrator is apparent from the circumstances of this case.
of the applicant to such position. Hence, under Philippine jurisprudence, it
The respondent Judge himself explains that the order for the preservation
has been settled that the same fundamental and legal principles governing
of the estate was limited to properties not claimed by third parties. If
the choice of a regular administrator should be taken in choosing the
certain properties are already in the possession of the applicant for special
special administrator (Francisco, Vol. VB, page 46 citing the cases of
administratrix and are not claimed by other persons, we see no need to
Ozaeta v. Pecson, Ibid. and Roxas v. Pecson, Ibid.)
hurry up and take special action to preserve those properties. As it is, the
sheriffs took advantage of the questioned order to seize by force,
Page 6 of 8
properties found in the residence of the petitioner which he vehemently others involved thereon. On the result of his decisions to sit or not sit may
claims are owned by him and not by the estate of the deceased person. depend to a great extent that all-important confidence in the impartiality
of the judiciary. If after reflection he should resolve to voluntarily desist
The petitioner also asks that the respondent Judge be disqualified from from sitting in a case where his motives or fairness might be seriously
continuing with the proceedings of the case on the ground that he is impugned, his action is to be interpreted as giving meaning and substance
partial to the private respondent. to the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137. He serves the cause of
the law who forestalls miscarriage of justice.”
In view of the fact that the respondent Judge in his “Explanation” requests
that he be inhibited from further active on the case, this issue has now Considering the foregoing, we find no need to discuss the other issues
become academic. We accept Judge Angeles’ voluntary inhibition in line raised in the petition.
with our ruling in Pimentel v. Salanga (21 SCRA 160). As we stated in
Query of Executive Judge Estrella T. Estrada, Regional Trial Court of WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The questioned orders of
Malolos, Bulacan on the conflicting views of Regional Trial Court—Judges the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58 of Makati are hereby set aside. The
Manalo and Elisaga Re: Criminal Case No. 4954-M Administrative Matter case is ordered remanded to the lower court for the hearing of the petition
No. 87-9-3918-RTC, October 26, 1987: with previous notice to all interested parties as required by law. In view of
the voluntary inhibition of the respondent Judge, the Executive Judge of
xxx xxx xxx the Regional Trial Court, Makati is directed to re-raffle the case to another
branch of the court. The Temporary Restraining Order dated June 10,
“x x x A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a litigation. But
1987 is made permanent. No costs.
when suggestion is made of record that he might be induced to act in
favor of one party or with bias or prejudice against a litigant arising out of SO ORDERED.
circumstances reasonably capable of inciting such a state of mind, he
should conduct a careful self-examination. He should exercise his Fernan (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin and Cortés, JJ., concur.
discretion in a way that the people’s faith in the courts of justice is not
impaired. A salutary norm is that he reflect on the probability that a losing Petition granted. Orders set aside.
party might nurture at the back of his mind the thought that the judge
Note.—Illegally dismissed workers are entitled to reinstatement plus an
had unmeritoriously tilted the scales of justice against him. That passion
award equivalent to 3 years pay. (Siozon General Merchandising Company
on the part of a judge may be generated because of serious charges of
vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 99 SCRA 66.)
misconduct against him by a suitor or his counsel, is not altogether
remote. He is a man, subject to the frailties of other men. He should, ——o0o—— De Guzman vs. Angeles, 162 SCRA 347, No. L-78590 June 20,
therefore, exercise great care and caution before making up his mind to 1988
act or withdraw from a suit where that party or counsel is involved. He
could in good grace inhibit himself where that case could be heard by
another judge and where no appreciable prejudice would be occasioned to
Page 7 of 8
Page 8 of 8