Torres and de Jesus vs. Sicat Vda. de Morales
Torres and de Jesus vs. Sicat Vda. de Morales
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015dec7a24b3cd0f8e51003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/6
8/17/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 093
156
BENGZON,J.:
On August 25, 1950, Luis Morales, married to
Hermenegilda Sicat, died in the municipality of Tarlac,
Tarlac. Seven days later, Jose Torres alleging to be a
creditor of the conjugal partnership commenced this special
pro ceeding in the Tarlac court petitioning for the issuance
of letters of administration in favor of Atty. Pedro B. de
Jesus, for the purpose of settling the estate of the deceased.
Twelve days afterwards the widow voiced her opposition,
and claimed preference to be appointed as administratrix.
She said the only close relatives and forced heirs were her
six legitimate minor children, besides herself.
The petitioner presented evidence. The oppositor
submitted none. Then the trial judge, disregarding the
157
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015dec7a24b3cd0f8e51003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/6
8/17/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 093
preference established by law for the surviving widow,
entered on August 16, 1951 an order appointing Atty.
Pedro B. de Jesus as the administrator.
The widow appealed on time, and argued several assign
ments of error revolving around the principal issue
whether this appointment should be upheld, ignoring the
surviving widow's preferential right.
The order making the appointment is undoubtedly
appealable. (Section 1, Rule 105, Sy Hong Eng vs. Sy Lioc
Suy, 8 Phil., 594, Moran, Comments, 1952 ed., Vol. 2, p.
592.)
Under section 6, rule 79 of the Rules of Court, when a
person dies intestate, administration should be granted :
158
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015dec7a24b3cd0f8e51003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/6
8/17/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 093
exceeds the value of the conjugal assets ; therefore the
interest of the creditors deserves paramount consideration.
Now, inasmuch as the widow has shown hostility to the
creditors by openly disputing their credits, she is there
fore unsuitable, for having adverse interests." He reasoned
from the abovequoted statement of principles and others,
particularly Sioca vs. Garcia, 44 Phil., 711:
"The surviving widow" the trial judge stated, "has
always consistently refused to recognize the credits" and
manifested her determination to "resist the claims of
creditors."
In our opinion it is a sound juridical principle that the
administrator should not adopt attitudes nor take steps
inimical to the interests of the creditors. The
administration of the intestate is undertaken for the
benefit of both the heirs and the creditors. But by creditors
we mean those declared to be so in appropriate proceedings.
Before their credits are fully established they are not
"creditors" within the purview of the above principle. So it
is not improperit is even properfor the administrator or
whoever is proposed for appointment as such, to oppose, or
to require competent proof of, claims advanced against the
estate. "The propriety of contesting particular claims must
frequently be left largely to his discretion and no
presumption of bad faith or misconduct will be made
against him." (34 C. J. S., p. 259.)
At the hearing of the petition for the appointment of
administrator, this widow practically did nothing more
than to inform the alleged creditors, "Prove your credit
159
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015dec7a24b3cd0f8e51003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/6
8/17/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 093
before I honor it." That is not necessarily dishonest nor
contrary to real creditors. And then, not having opposed all
creditors, because she did not 'deny the estate's liability to
the People's Bank, she could not strictly be considered
hostile to the creditors. Had she acknowledged
indebtedness to every one coming forward with a claim,
regardless of its merit, she would be useless, even harmful,
both to the heirs and the actual creditors.
Under the rules (Rule 87) creditors' claims may be filed,
and considered, only after the regular administrator has
been appointed. Hence, in selecting the administrator, the
court could not yet normally accord priority treatment to
the interests of those whose credits were in dispute. And
counsel for herein appellant did well in opposing the
presentation of evidence of the objected credits at the
hearing, arguing in part,
"* * * the time has not yet arrived when this court
can
even entertain the presentation of those exhibits
because the stage of presenting claims has not yet arrived.
Consequently, this court can not even receive as evidence
the said documents as evidence of indebtedness, because if
those evidence will be accepted then we will be in a position
to rebut then.' and to enter into actual trial to show that
they are not really evidence of indebtedness, and in that
case we will not terminate because then we will be
contending as to whether those were really executed or
really contracted. * * *
On the other hand, the appealed order conceding that
the evidence "showed clearly that the surviving widow is
fully competent in a high degree to administer the intestate
of her deceased husband", plainly indicates that except for
her supposed hostility to creditors she was suitable for the
trust. Consequently, having found that her attitude did not
per se constitute antagonism to the creditors,' we must
necessarily declare and enforce her superior right to
appointment as administratrix under Rule 79.
Wherefore, the questioned order appointing Atty. Pedro
B. de Jesus is annulled, and one will be entered requiring
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015dec7a24b3cd0f8e51003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/6
8/17/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 093
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015dec7a24b3cd0f8e51003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/6