4.4. 3.

REPROBATE OF THE WILL:

Duty of the court in reprobate of the will:
Reprobate is specifically governed by Rule 77 of the Rules of
Court. In reprobate, the local court acknowledges as binding the
findings of the foreign probate court provided its jurisdiction over
the matter can be established. (In The Matter Of The Petition To
Approve The Will Of Ruperta Palaganas vs. Ernesto Palaganas,
G.R. No. 169144, January 26, 2011)
a) Requisites before a will proved abroad will be allowed in the
Philippines
Article 816 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides thus:
Art. 816. The will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in the
Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by the law of
the place in which he resides, or according to the formalities
observed in his country, or in conformity with those which this
Code prescribes. (Art. 816 of the Civil Code)
Matters to be proved in reprobate of the will:
The evidence necessary for the reprobate or allowance of wills
which have been probated outside of the Philippines are as
follows: (1) the due execution of the will in accordance with the
foreign laws; (2) the testator has his domicile in the foreign
country and not in the Philippines; (3) the will has been admitted
to probate in such country; (4) the fact that the foreign tribunal is
a probate court, and (5) the laws of a foreign country on
procedure and allowance of wills . (De Perez vs. Tolete, G.R. No.
76714 June 2, 1994)
Duty of proving foreign laws in reprobate of the will: Reason:
The necessity of presenting evidence on the foreign laws upon
which the probate in the foreign country is based is impelled by
the fact that our courts cannot take judicial notice of them
(Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank vs. Escolin, 56 Scra
266 G.R. Nos. L-27860 and L-27896 March 29, 1974).
Duty of the court in case a will is presented for reprobate:
The rule that the court having jurisdiction over the reprobate of a
will shall "cause notice thereof to be given as in case of an
original will presented for allowance" (Revised Rules of Court, Rule
27, Section 2) means that with regard to notices, the will probated
abroad should be treated as if it were an "original will" or a will
that is presented for probate for the first time. (De Perez vs.
Tolete, G.R. No. 76714 June 2, 1994)

Where to make the administration of property?

When a person dies intestate owning property in the country of
his domicile as well as in a foreign country, administration is had
in both countries. (B.E. Johannes vs. Harvey, G.R. No. 18600,
March 9, 1922)
Principal/domiciliary administration vs. Ancillary administration:
That which is granted in the jurisdiction of decedent's last
domicile is termed the principal/ domiciliary administration, while
any other administration is termed the ancillary administration.
The ancillary administration is proper, whenever a person dies,
leaving in a country other than that of his last domicile, property
to be administered in the nature of assets of the deceased liable
for his individual debts or to be distributed among his heirs."
(Testate Estate of Idonah Perkins vs Benguet Consolidated, G.R.
No. L23145, November 29, 1968)
4.4.4.
4.5. LETTERS TESTAMENTARY AND OF ADMINISTRATION
4.5. 1. WHEN AND TO WHOM LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION
GRANTED
The following may administer the estate of a deceased:
1. Executor
2. Administrator
WHO ARE INCOMPETENT
ADMINISTRATORS

TO

SERVE

AS

EXECUTORS

OR

No person is competent to serve as executor or administrator

who:
(a) Is a minor;
(b) Is not a resident of the Philippines; and
Page 13 of 69
(c) Is in the opinion of the court unfit to execute the duties of the
trust by reason of
i.)drunkenness, ii.) improvidence, or Iii.)want of understanding or
integrity, or iv.) by reason of conviction of an offense involving
moral turpitude. (Section 1, Rule 78)
v.) Antagonistic
Interest. "(I)n this jurisdiction, one is considered to be unsuitable
for appointment as administrator when he has adverse interest of

some kind of hostility to those immediately interested in the

estate.". (Medina vs. CA, G.R. No. L-34760, September 28, 1973)
Determination of executor or administrator discretionary upon the
court:
The Rules of Court gives the lower court the duty and discretion
to determine whether in its opinion an individual is unfit to serve
as an executor. The sufficiency of any ground for removal should
thus be determined by the said court, whose sensibilities are, in
the first place, affected by any act or omission on the part of the
administrator not conformable to or in disregard of the rules of
orders of the court. (Matute vs. Court Of Appeals, No. L- 26751,
January 31, 1969, 26 SCRA 768, 784)
Choice of executor prerogative of the testator:
The choice of his executor is a precious prerogative of a testator,
a necessary concomitant of his right to dispose of his property in
the manner he wishes. The curtailment of this right may be
considered as a curtailment of the right to dispose and as the
rights granted by will take effect from the time of death, the
management of his estate by the administrator of his choice
should be made as soon as practicable, when no reasonable
objection to his assumption of the trust can be interposed any
longer. (RP vs. Marcos Ii, G.R. Nos. 130371 &130855, August 4,
2009)
4.5. 2. ORDER OF PREFERENCE
Order of preference in the appointment of a regular administrator:
Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court lists the order of
preference in the appointment of an administrator of an estate:
SEC. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. If
no executor is named in the will, or the executor or executors are
incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a person
dies intestate, administration shall be granted:
(a) To the
surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or
both, in the discretion of the court, or to such person as such
surviving husband or wife, or next of kin, requests to have
appointed, if competent and willing to serve;
(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;

(c) If there is no such creditor
competent and willing to serve, it may be granted to such other
person as the court may select.
However, the order of
preference is not absolute for it depends on the attendant facts
and circumstances of each case and it has been long held that the
selection of an administrator lies in the sound discretion of the
trial court. (In The Matter Of The Intestate Estate Of Cristina
Aguinaldo- Suntay; Emilio A.M. Suntay III vs. Cojuangco-Suntay,
G.R. No. 183053, June 16, 2010)
Factor to consider in the appointment of administrator:
The paramount consideration in the appointment of an
administrator over the estate of a decedent is the prospective
administrators interest in the estate. This is the same
consideration which Section 6, Rule 78 takes into account in
establishing the order of preference in the appointment of
administrator for the estate. The rationale behind the rule is that
those who will reap the benefit of a wise, speedy and economical
administration of the estate, or, in the alternative, suffer the
consequences of waste, improvidence or mismanagement, have
the highest interest and most influential motive to administer the
estate correctly. In all, given that the rule speaks of an order of
preference, the person to be appointed administrator of a
decedents estate must demonstrate not only an interest in the
estate, but an interest therein greater than any other candidate.
(Emilio A.M. Suntay III vs. Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay., G.R. No.
183053, October 10, 2012)
In the appointment of the administrator of the estate of a
deceased person, the principal consideration reckoned with is the
interest in said estate of the one to be appointed as administrator.
The underlying assumption behind this rule is that those who will
reap the benefit of a wise, speedy, economical administration of
the estate, or, on the other hand, suffer the consequences of
waste, improvidence or mismanagement, have the highest
interest and most influential motive to administer the estate
correctly. (Gonzales vs. Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 74769 September 28,
1990)
When can the court appoint an administrator if the executor is
disqualified, refused to assume the trust, etc.?
The rule is that if no executor is named in the will, or the named
executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to
give bond, or a person dies intestate, the court must appoint an
administrator of the estate of the deceased who shall act as

representative not only of the court appointing him but also of the
heirs and the creditors of the estate. In the exercise of its
discretion, the probate court may appoint one, two or more coadministrators to have the benefit of their judgment and perhaps
at all times to have different interests represented. (Gonzales vs.
Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 74769 September 28, 1990)
Appointment of co-administrators:
Where the estate is large, to appoint two or more administrators
of such estate to have different interests represented and
satisfied, and furthermore, to have such representatives work in
harmony for the best interests of such estate. (Matute vs. CA, G.R.
No. 26751, January 31, 1969)
Appointment of co-administrator is allowed but as an exception
It is to this requirement of observation of the order of preference
in the appointment of administrator of a decedents estate, that
the appointment of co-administrators has been allowed, but as an
exception. We again refer to Section 6(a) of Rule 78 of the Rules
of Court which specifically states that letters of administration
may be issued to both the surviving spouse and the next of kin. In
addition and impliedly, we can refer to Section 2 of Rule 82 of the
Rules of Court which say that x x x [w]hen an executor or
administrator dies, resigns, or is removed, the remaining executor
or administrator may administer the trust alone, x x x.
In a number of cases, we have sanctioned the appointment of
more than one administrator for the benefit of the estate and
those interested therein. We recognized that the appointment of
administrator of the estate of a decedent or the determination of
a persons suitability for the office of judicial administrator rests,
to a great extent, in the sound judgment of the court exercising
the power of appointment.
Under certain circumstances and for various reasons well-settled
in Philippine and American jurisprudence, we have upheld the
appointment of co-administrators: (1) to have the benefits of their
judgment and perhaps at all times to have different interests
represented; (2) where justice and equity demand that opposing
parties or factions be represented in the management of the
estate of the deceased; (3) where the estate is large or, from any
cause, an intricate and perplexing one to settle;(4) to have all
interested persons satisfied and the representatives to work in
harmony for the best interests of the estate; and when a person
entitled to the administration of an estate desires to have another
competent person associated with him in the office. (Emilio A.M.

Suntay III vs. Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay., G.R. No. 183053, October

10, 2012)