PIJUAN V. VDA. DE GURREA
So, it cannot be said, as yet, that he has died
FACTS:
1. Manuela Gurrea were married to Carlos Gurrea in spain, until
the latter left her. Carlos went to the PH with their son,
Teodoro. Carlos lived in the PH with his common law wife,
Rizalina. They begot two Children.
2. Manuela went to the PH and instituted against Carlos a civil
case for support and annulment of some alleged donations of
conjugal property in favor of his common law wife. This was
granted.
3. Subsequently, Carlos died leaving his last will and testament
which he named Marcelo Pijuan as executor thereof and
disinherited Manuela and Teodoro.
a. Pijuan was, upon his ex parte motion, appointed special
administrator of the estate.
4. Manuela filed a motion for the continuance of her alimony,
however, this was denied. She then filed a motionfor her
appointment as administratrix of the estate of the deceased.
5. LC: motion denied. It was indicated in the will who the executor
will be.
6. Manuela claims that as the widow of the deceased, she claims
a right of preference under Section 6 of Rule 78.
ISSUE: WON Manuela has preference over the appointment to
administratrix?
HELD: NO.
1. In the language of this provision, said preference exists "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." None of these conditions obtains, however, in
the case at bar.
a. The deceased Carlos Gurrea has left a document
purporting to be his will, seemingly, is still pending
probate.
intestate.
2. Again, said document names Marcelo Pijuan as executor
thereof, and it is not claimed that he is incompetent therefor.
What is more, he has not only not refused the trust, but, has,
also, expressly accepted it, by applying for his appointment as
executor, and, upon his appointment as special administrator,
has assumed the duties thereof.
3. The preference accorded by the aforementioned provision of
the Rules of Court to the surviving spouse refers to the appoint
of a regular administrator or administratrix, not to that of a
special administrator, and that the order appointing the latter
lies within the discretion of the probate court, and is not
appealable.
IN CASE SHE ASKED ABOUT THE CONTINUANCE OF ALIMONY:
1. The lower court denied the continuance because of absence of
proof as regards the status, nature or character of the property
now under the custody of the Special Administrator.
2. However, the Supreme court held that on account of such lack
of proof thereon, we are bound by law to assume that the
estate of the deceased consists of property belonging to the
conjugal partnership, one-half of which belongs presumptively
to Mrs. Gurrea, aside from such part of the share of the
deceased in said partnership as may belong to her as one of the
compulsory heirs, if his alleged will were not allowed to
probate, or, even if probated, if the provision therein
disinheriting her were nullified.