2 Ocampo V Ocampo 2010 Special Administrator Bond
2 Ocampo V Ocampo 2010 Special Administrator Bond
2022
Constitution
Statutes
Executive Issuances
Judicial Issuances
Other Issuances
Jurisprudence
International Legal Resources
AUSL Exclusive
SECOND DIVISION
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
The Antecedents
In its June 15, 2006 Order,11 the RTC appointed Dalisay and Renato as
special joint administrators of the estate of the deceased spouses, and
required them to post a bond of ₱200,000.00 each. 12
Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated August 1, 2006 13 of the
Order, insisting that Dalisay was incompetent and unfit to be appointed as
administrator of the estate, considering that she even failed to take care of
her husband Leonardo when he was paralyzed in 1997. They also contended
that petitioners’ prayer for Dalisay’s appointment as special administrator was
already deemed abandoned upon their nomination of the Biñan Rural Bank
to act as special administrator of the estate.
On April 23, 2007, or two (2) months after respondents’ appointment as joint
special administrators, petitioners filed a Motion for an Inventory and to
Render Account of the Estate,17 reiterating their stance that respondents, as
joint special administrators, should be directed to submit a true inventory of
the income and assets of the estate.
In an Order dated June 29, 2007,19 the RTC directed the parties to submit
their respective comments or oppositions to the pending incidents, i.e.,
petitioners’ Motion for Inventory and to Render Account, and respondents’
Motion for Exemption to File Administrators’ Bond.
Respondents filed their Comment and/or Opposition, 20 stating that they have
already filed a comment on petitioners’ Motion for Inventory and to Render
Account. They asserted that the RTC should, in the meantime, hold in
abeyance the resolution of this Motion, pending the resolution of their Motion
for Exemption to File Administrators’ Bond.
On October 15, 2007, or eight (8) months after the February 16, 2007 Order
appointing respondents as special joint administrators, petitioners filed a
Motion to Terminate or Revoke the Special Administration and to Proceed to
Judicial Partition or Appointment of Regular Administrator. 21 Petitioners
contended that the special administration was not necessary as the estate is
neither vast nor complex, the properties of the estate being identified and
undisputed, and not involved in any litigation necessitating the representation
of special administrators. Petitioners, likewise, contended that respondents
had been resorting to the mode of special administration merely to delay and
prolong their deprivation of what was due them. Petitioners cited an alleged
fraudulent sale by respondents of a real property for ₱2,700,000.00, which
the latter represented to petitioners to have been sold only for
₱1,500,000.00, and respondents’ alleged misrepresentation that petitioners
owed the estate for the advances to cover the hospital expenses of
Leonardo, but, in fact, were not yet paid.
Respondents filed their Opposition and Comment 22 on March 10, 2008, to
which, in turn, petitioners filed their Reply to Opposition/Comment 23 on March
17, 2008.
In its Order dated March 13, 2008,24 the RTC granted petitioners’ Motion,
revoking and terminating the appointment of Renato and Erlinda as joint
special administrators, on account of their failure to comply with its Order,
particularly the posting of the required bond, and to enter their duties and
responsibilities as special administrators, i.e., the submission of an inventory
of the properties and of an income statement of the estate. The RTC also
appointed Melinda as regular administratrix, subject to the posting of a bond
in the amount of ₱200,000.00, and directed her to submit an inventory of the
properties and an income statement of the subject estate. The RTC likewise
found that judicial partition may proceed after Melinda had assumed her
duties and responsibilities as regular administratrix.
On December 16, 2008, the CA rendered its assailed Decision granting the
petition based on the finding that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in
revoking respondents’ appointment as joint special administrators without
first ruling on their motion for exemption from bond, and for appointing
Melinda as regular administratrix without conducting a formal hearing to
determine her competency to assume as such. According to the CA, the
posting of the bond is a prerequisite before respondents could enter their
duties and responsibilities as joint special administrators, particularly their
submission of an inventory of the properties of the estate and an income
statement thereon.
Our Ruling
(a) To make and return to the court, within three (3) months, a
true and complete inventory of all goods, chattels, rights, credits,
and estate of the deceased which shall come to his possession or
knowledge or to the possession of any other person for him;
(b) To administer according to these rules, and, if an executor,
according to the will of the testator, all goods, chattels, rights,
credits, and estate which shall at any time come to his
possession or to the possession of any other person for him, and
from the proceeds to pay and discharge all debts, legacies, and
charges on the same, or such dividends thereon as shall be
decreed by the court;
While the RTC considered that respondents were the nearest of kin to their
deceased parents in their appointment as joint special administrators, this is
not a mandatory requirement for the appointment. It has long been settled
that the selection or removal of special administrators is not governed by the
rules regarding the selection or removal of regular administrators. 36 The
probate court may appoint or remove special administrators based on
grounds other than those enumerated in the Rules at its discretion, such that
the need to first pass upon and resolve the issues of fitness or
unfitness37 and the application of the order of preference under Section 6 of
Rule 78,38 as would be proper in the case of a regular administrator, do not
obtain. As long as the discretion is exercised without grave abuse, and is
based on reason, equity, justice, and legal principles, interference by higher
courts is unwarranted.39 The appointment or removal
Granting the certiorari petition, the CA found that the RTC gravely abused its
discretion in revoking respondents’ appointment as joint special
administrators, and for failing to first resolve the pending Motion for
Exemption to File Administrators’ Bond, ratiocinating that the posting of the
administrators’ bond is a pre-requisite to respondents’ entering into the duties
and responsibilities of their designated office. This Court disagrees.
It is worthy of mention that, as early as October 11, 2005, in their Motion for
Appointment as Joint Special Administrators, respondents already prayed for
their exemption to post bond should they be assigned as joint special
administrators. However, the RTC effectively denied this prayer when it
issued its June 15, 2006 Order, designating Renato and Dalisay as special
administrators and enjoining them to post bond in the amount of ₱200,000.00
each. This denial was, in effect, reiterated when the RTC rendered its
February 16, 2007 Order substituting Dalisay with Erlinda as special
administratrix.
Pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 81, the bond secures the performance of the
duties and obligations of an administrator namely: (1) to administer the estate
and pay the debts; (2) to perform all judicial orders; (3) to account within one
(1) year and at any other time when required by the probate court; and (4) to
make an inventory within three (3) months. More specifically, per Section 4 of
the same Rule, the bond is conditioned on the faithful execution of the
administration of the decedent’s estate requiring the special administrator to
(1) make and return a true inventory of the goods, chattels, rights, credits,
and estate of the deceased which come to his possession or knowledge; (2)
truly account for such as received by him when required by the court; and (3)
deliver the same to the person appointed as executor or regular
administrator, or to such other person as may be authorized to receive them.
Verily, the administration bond is for the benefit of the creditors and the heirs,
as it compels the administrator, whether regular or special, to perform the
trust reposed in, and discharge the obligations incumbent upon, him. Its
object and purpose is to safeguard the properties of the decedent, and,
therefore, the bond should not be considered as part of the necessary
expenses chargeable against the estate, not being included among the acts
constituting the care, management, and settlement of the estate. Moreover,
the ability to post the bond is in the nature of a qualification for the office of
administration.41
On the other hand, the Court finds the RTC’s designation of Melinda as
regular administratrix improper and abusive of its discretion.
(a) Is a minor;
(c) Is in the opinion of the court unfit to execute the duties of the
trust by reason of drunkenness, improvidence, or want of
understanding or integrity, or by reason of conviction of an
offense involving moral turpitude.
xxxx
(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next
of kin, or the person selected by them, be incompetent or
unwilling, or if the husband or widow, or next of kin, neglects for
thirty (30) days after the death of the person to apply for
administration or to request that administration be granted to
some other person, it may be granted to one or more of the
principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve;
(b) The names, ages, and residences of the heirs, and the names
and residences of the creditors, of the decedent;
(d) The name of the person for whom letters of administration are
prayed.
But no defect in the petition shall render void the issuance of letters of
administration.
Sec. 3. Court to set time for hearing. Notice thereof. – When a petition for
letters of administration is filed in the court having jurisdiction, such court
shall fix a time and place for hearing the petition, and shall cause notice
thereof to be given to the known heirs and creditors of the decedent, and to
any other persons believed to have an interest in the estate, in the manner
provided in Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76.
Sec. 5. Hearing and order for letters to issue. – At the hearing of the petition,
it must first be shown that notice has been given as herein-above required,
and thereafter the court shall hear the proofs of the parties in support of their
respective allegations, and if satisfied that the decedent left no will, or that
there is no competent and willing executor, it shall order the issuance of
letters of administration to the party best entitled thereto.1avvphi1
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Footnotes
1
Rollo, pp. 12-33.
2
Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with Associate
Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Magdangal M. de Leon,
concurring; id. at 34-51.
3
Id. at 52-53.
4
Id. at 54-55.
5
Id. at 35-36.
6
Id. at 36.
7
Id. at 36-37.
8
Id. at 37.
9
Id.
10
Id.
11
Id.
12
As admitted by respondents in their Petition for Certiorari with
Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order
and/or Preliminary Injunction; id. at 86.
13
Id. at 38.
14
Id.
15
Id.
16
Id. at 39.
17
Id.
18
Id. at 40.
19
Id.
20
Id. at 40-41.
21
Id. at 56-63.
22
Id. at 71-75.
23
Id. at 76-80.
24
Id. at 54-55.
25
Id. at 81-107.
26
Id. at 108-132.
27
Id. at 142-145.
28
Id. at 146-155.
29
Rule 80.
30
Id.
31
Rule 81.
32
Id.
33
Co v. Rosario, G.R. No. 160671, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA
225, 229.
34
Heirs of Belinda Dahlia A. Castillo v. Lacuata-Gabriel, G.R. No.
162934, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 747, 757; Valarao v.
Pascual, 441 Phil. 226, 238 (2002).
35
Tan v. Gedorio, Jr., G.R. No. 166520, March 14, 2008, 548
SCRA 528, 537.
36
Co v. Rosario, supra note 33, at 228; Tan v. Gedorio, Jr.,
supra, at 536; Heirs of Belinda Dahlia A. Castillo v. Lacuata-
Gabriel, supra note 34, at 760; Pijuan v. De Gurrea, 124 Phil.
1527, 1531-1532 (1966); Roxas v. Pecson, 82 Phil. 407, 410
(1948).
37
Co v. Rosario, supra note 33, at 228; Rivera v. Hon. Santos, et
al., 124 Phil. 1557, 1561 (1966).
38
Infra.
39
Co v. Rosario, supra note 33, at 228; Fule v. Court of Appeals,
165 Phil. 785, 800 (1976).
40
Tan v. Gedorio, Jr., supra note 35, at 536; Jamero v. Melicor,
498 Phil. 158, 165-166 (2005).
41
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 385
Phil. 397, 409 (2000); Moran Sison v. Teodoro, 100 Phil. 1055,
1058 (1957); Sulit v. Santos, 56 Phil. 626, 630 (1932).
42
Annex "N" to the Petition for Certiorari before the CA.
43
Per respondents’ Petition for Certiorari before the CA; rollo, p.
96.
44
Per petitioners’ Comment to the petition before the CA; id. at
114.
45
Id. at 64-65.
46
Id. at 66-67.
47
Id. at 68-70.
48
Co v. Rosario, supra note 33, at 228-229.
49
Rollo, p. 41.
50
As admitted by respondents in their Comment; id. at 165-166.