G.R. No.

21969 September 25, 1924  Another bond also in the amount of P30,000 and
with the same sureties was filed by the
MAXIMINA TAN, administratrix of the property administrator, and letters of administration were
of the deceased Go Bung Kiu, Plaintiff-Appellee, issued in his favor. Go Chiong Lee continued to
vs. GO CHIONG LEE, TIO LIOK, AND CHANGCO discharge his duties administrator until he was
and MANUEL GO TIANUY, Defendants-Appellants. relieved by Maximina Tan on October 28, 1921.
 During this period the administrator furnished 3
DOCTRINE
reports.
The standard of responsibility of the administrator is best  The court then was able to review claims which
measured as in essence the responsibility of a bailee. Like totaled to 69,000. A month later, the court
any bailee, he must pursue his discretion honestly and in ordered the administrator to pay such claim out of
good faith, or he will become personally liable, to those the estate fund.
who are interested in the estate, for waste, conversion, or  Lee stated that he already paid the said amount.
embezzlement. However, several discrepancies to amounts of
claims has been discovered to which the present
FACTS
administratrix laches the present action.
 Go Bung Kiu died in China on April 15, 1920. On ISSUE
April 26, 1920, Go Chiong Lee was appointed
special administrator of the estate, with Tio Liok, WHETHER LEE IS LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED
Ang Changco, and Manuel Go Tianuy as sureties AMOUNT OF CLAIM AGAINST THE ESTATE
on his bond in the sum of P30,000.
HELD – NO
 Go Chiong Lee's status with reference to the estate
was changed to that of administrator. On the same RATIO
date, Go Chiong Lee filed a motion in which he
prayed that he be allowed to operate two stores
The standard of responsibility of the administrator is best
belonging to the estate, one in the City of Cebu and
measured as in essence the responsibility of a bailee. Like
the other in the municipality of Toledo, Cebu. This
any bailee, he must pursue his discretion honestly and in
was approved by the court provided, that the
good faith, or he will become personally liable, to those
administrator furnish a written report each month.
who are interested in the estate, for waste, conversion, or
embezzlement. But where an administrator, entrusted
with the carrying on of an estate, acts in good faith and in
accordance with the usual rules and methods obtaining in
such business, he will not be held liable for the losses
incurred.
The personal responsibility of the former administrator
and the sureties on his bond for losses incurred by the
estate during his administration, has not been proved.
 dismissed (G. R. No. 40998, Cosme de
Mendoza vs. Pacheco and Cordero [60
Phil., 1057]) When the case was remanded
Rule 81 to the lower court, appellants filed a motion
challenging, for the first time, the
COSME DE MENDOZA v. PACHECO jurisdiction of the trial court to order the
FACTS execution of the administrator’s bond. The
trial court denied the motion in view of the
 Manuel Soriano was former administrator decision of the SC. Thus, the present
of the estate of Baldomero Cosme in Civil petition.
Case No. 5494, Court of First Instance of
Laguna (CFI). To assure faithful ISSUE
performance of his duties as such Whether the CFI had jurisdiction to order the
administrator, he filed a bond for P5,000, execution of the administrator’s bond - YES
with appellants, Januario Pacheco and
Raymundo Cordero, as sureties. Soriano RATIO
became indebted to the estate in the sum of It lies within the discretion of the court to select an
P23,603.21. Unable to turn this amount administrator of the estate of a deceased person
over to the estate upon demand of Rosario (Capistrano vs. Nadurata). Before an administrator,
Cosme, the new administratrix, the lower or an executor, enters upon the execution of the trust,
court ordered the execution of his bond. and letters testamentary or of administration are issued,
 Sometime later, the court approved a the person to whom they are issued is required to give a
settlement between the administratrix and bond in such reasonable sum as the court directs, with
the ex-administrator, whereby the latter one or more sufficient sureties, conditioned upon the
ceded certain real properties to the estate faithful performance of his trust (Code of Civil
from P23,603.21 to P5,000. The property of Procedure, secs. 643, 662). The administrator is
the sureties were sold in public sale to accountable on his bond along with the sureties for the
collect this amount of P5,000. performance of certain legal obligations. (Tan vs. Go
 Separate motions to be discharges from the Chiong Lee).
bond were filed by appellants. Both motions
were denied. Brought on appeal to the A CFI, in exercising its probate jurisdiction, is
Supreme Court (SC), the appeal was empowered to require the filing of the administrator's
bond, to fix the amount thereof, and to hold it recognized confines of probate proceedings, and not in an
accountable for any breach of the administrator's duty. action apart and distinct from such proceedings.
Possessed, as it is, with an all-embracing power over the
The execution of an administrator's bond clearly
administrator's bond and over administration
stands upon a different footing, unlike in the following
proceedings, a CFI in a probate proceeding can not be
cases (where the probate court has no jurisdiction)
devoid of legal authority to execute and make that bond
involving i) claims of other persons on property forming
answerable for the very purpose for which it was filed.
part of the estate; ii) by title adverse to the deceased; iii)
It is true that the law does not say expressly or in the legal usufruct of the widow; and iv) the validity of
so many words that such court has power to execute the testamentary dispositions. The execution of the
bond of an administrator, but by necessary and logical administrator’s bond is as necessary a part and incident
implication, the power is there as eloquently as if it were of the administration proceedings as the filing of such
phrased in unequivocal terms. When the accountability of bond or the fixing of its amount. Particularly is this true
an administrator's bond is spoken of in the very in the present case where Soriano’s indebtedness to the
provisions dealing with and bearing directly on estate in the amount of P23, 603.21, subsequently
administration proceedings, it is wrong to say that where reduced to P5,000, is conceded on all sides, and all that
an administrator is held liable for a devastavit1 for having the trial court had to do was to see that said amount was
squandered and misapplied property which he was in turned over to the estate.
duty bound to marshal and conserve, the estate is without
It is the duty of courts of probate jurisdiction to
a remedy to go against the administrator's bond in the
guard jealously the estates of the deceased persons by
same probate proceedings, but in an action outside of and
intervening in the administration thereof in order to
separate from it.
remedy or repair any injury that may be done thereto
Section 683 of the Code of Civil Procedure affords (Dariano vs. Fernandez Fidalgo; Sison vs.
a person who may be held liable as surety in respect to an Azarraga). The policy and purpose of administration
administrator's account the right, upon the application, proceedings is "to close up, and not to continue an estate
to be admitted as a party to the accounting, from which it (Lizarraga Hermanos vs. Abada)”, and that "the
can be inferred that a surety, like the appellants in the State fails wretchedly in its duty to its citizens if the
case before us, may be charged with liability upon the machinery furnished by it for the division and
bond during the process of accounting, that is, within the distribution of the property of a decedent is so
cumbersome, unwieldy and expensive that a
1 The mismanagement or waste of the assets in the estate of a deceased considerable portion of the estate is absorbed in the
person by the fiduciary in charge of the estate (as the executor).
process of such division. Where administration is
necessary, it ought to be accomplished quickly and at
very small expense; and a system which consumes any
considerable portion of the property which it was
designed to distribute is a failure (McMicking vs. Sy
Conbieng).”
PETITION DENIED.
 under each indemnity agreement or a total of
P609.00 for premiums and documentary stamps.
CONDITIONS OF THE BOND
 On 1957, CFI approved approved the amended
G.R. No. L-40517 January 31, 1984 Project of Partition and Accounts of defendant-
appellant
LUZON SURETY COMPANY, INC., plaintiff-appellee,  On October 17, 1962, the defendants-appellants
vs. ordered a motion for cancellation and/or
reduction of executor's bonds on the ground that
PASTOR T. QUEBRAR and FRANCISCO KILAYKO, "the heirs of these testate estates have already
defendants-appellants. received their respective shares"
DOCTRINE  Plaintiff-appellee's demanded defendants-
appellants to pay the said amount of P4,872.00 for
 surety is liable under the administrator's the period of August 9, 1955 to October 20, 1962
bond, for as long as the administrator has on the ground that the bonds were still in force
duties to do as such during the said years.
administrator/executor.
ISSUE
FACTS
Whether or not the administrator's bonds were
 Plaintiff-appellee issued two administrator's bond in force and effect from and after the year that
in the amount of P15,000.00 each, in behalf of the they were filed and approved by the court up to
defendant-appellant Pastor T. Quebrar, as 1962, when they were cancelled
administrator in Special Proceedings Nos. 3075
HELD – YES
and 3076 (estate of Chinsuy and Lipa)
 In consideration of the suretyship wherein the RATIO:
plaintiff-appellee was bound jointly and severally
with the defendant appellant Pastor T. Quebrar –  The bonds herein were required by Section 1 of
the defendant executed two indemnity agreements Rule 81 of the Rules of Court which states and
together with Francisco Kilayko. (P300.00) requires the administrator/executor to put up a
 For the first year, from August 9, 1954 to August 9, bond for the purpose of indemnifying the
1955, the defendants-appellants paid P304.50 creditors, heirs, legatees and the estate. It is
conditioned upon the faithful performance of the
administrator's trust
 Having in mind the purpose and intent of the law,
the surety is then liable under the
administrator's bond, for as long as the
administrator has duties to do as such
administrator/executor.
 It is shown that the defendant-appellant Pastor T.
Quebrar, still had something to do as an
administrator/executor even after the approval of
the amended project of partition and accounts on
June 6, 1957.
 With the payment of the premium for the first
year, the surety already assumed the risk involved,
that is, in case defendant-appellant Pastor T.
Quebrar defaults in his administrative duties.
 The surety became liable under the bond for the
faithful administration of the estate by the
administrator/executor.
 Hence, for as long as defendant-appellant Pastor
T. Quebrar was administrator of the estates, the
bond was held liable and inevitably, the plaintiff-
appellee's liability subsists since the liability of the
sureties is co-extensive with that of the
administrator.