Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
exclusion of the widow from the administration. (Gabriel, et. al. vs. CA, G.R.
No. 101512, August 7, 1992)
It is, therefore, our view that, now as before, the rule is that where
administration proceeding is unnecessary because the estate has no debts
and the more expeditious remedy by partition is available the heirs or the
majority of them may not be compelled to submit the estate to such
proceeding. (Intestate Estate of Rufina Mercado, deceased. Catalina Javier
vs. Eulogio Magtibay and Soledad Magtibay De Hernandez, G.R. No. L-6829,
December 29, 1954)
The order of preference in the appointment of an administrator depends on the
attendant facts and circumstances. In Sioca v. Garcia, this Court set aside the order of
preference, to wit:
It is well settled that a probate court cannot arbitrarily and without sufficient
reason disregard the preferential rights of the surviving spouse to the
administration of the estate of the deceased spouse. But, if the person
enjoying such preferential rights is unsuitable, the court may
appoint another person. The determination of a persons suitability for the
office of administrator rests, to a great extent, in the sound judgment of the
court exercising the power of appointment and such judgment will not be
interfered with on appeal unless it appears affirmatively that the court below
was in error.
x x x Unsuitableness may consist in adverse interest of some kind or
hostility to those immediately interested in the estate. x x x.
(Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) (Uy vs. CA, G.R. No. 167979, March
15, 2006)
However, the order of preference is not absolute for it depends on the attendant facts
and circumstances of each case. Jurisprudence has long held that the selection of an
administrator lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. In the main, the attendant
facts and circumstances of this case necessitate, at the least, a joint administration by
both respondent and Emilio III of their grandmothers, Cristinas, estate.
In the case of Uy v. Court of Appeals, we upheld the appointment by the trial court of a
co-administration between the decedents son and the decedents brother, who was
likewise a creditor of the decedents estate. In the same vein, we declared in Delgado
Vda. de De la Rosa v. Heirs of Marciana Rustia Vda. de Damian that:
[i]n the appointment of an administrator, the principal consideration is
the interest in the estate of the one to be appointed. The order of preference
does not rule out the appointment of co-administrators, specially in cases
where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or factions be
represented in the management of the estates, a situation which obtains
here.
Similarly, the subject estate in this case calls to the succession other
putative heirs, including another illegitimate grandchild of Cristina and
Federico, Nenita Taedo, but who was likewise adopted by Federico, and the
two (2) siblings of respondent Isabel, Margarita and Emilio II. In all,
considering the conflicting claims of the putative heirs, and the unliquidated
conjugal partnership of Cristina and Federico which forms part of their
respective estates, we are impelled to move in only one direction, i.e., joint
administration of the subject estate. (Suntay vs. Suntay, G.R. No. 183053,
June 16, 2010)