Jaroda v. Cusi, Jr. co-owners of the Juna Subdivision.

The bank deposits

Reyes, J.B.L., J. | July 30, 1969
FACTS
• The Special Proceeding was commenced by Antonio Tan
(Tan) alleging in the petition that Carlos Villa Abrille died
intestate and that his heirs are his surviving spouse, 9
children (among them is petitioner Natividad Jaroda) and
4 grandsons, among them respondent Tan.
• Tan was appointed special administrator.
• Tan filed a petition for the withdrawal of sums from PNB
alleging that these sums were registered in the name of
the deceased but they were actually held in trust for co-
owners of Juna Subdivision. CFI granted this motion.
• CFI issued to Tan letters of administration. Tan filed a
petition alleging that the deceased was a manager and
co-owner of Juna Subdivision and praying for approval by
the court of the power of attorney executed by him, in
behalf of the intestate estate, appointing himself to sell
share of the estate in the subdivision lots. CFI granted
the petition.
• Jaroda moved to nullify the 2 CFI orders. CFI denied the
motion for lack of merit. Jaroda elevated the case to the
SC.
were in the name of the deceased so they belong prima
facie to his estate after his death. And until the contrary,
the special administrator is without power to make the
waiver or to hand over part of the estate to other persons
on the ground that the estate is not the owner thereof.
Issue #2
• The CFI order is void for want of notice and for
approving an improper contract or transaction.
• An administrator is not permitted to deal with
himself as an individual in any transaction
concerning trust property. This is because of the n
view of the fiduciary relationship that they occupy
with respect to the heirs of the deceased and their
responsibilities toward the probate court.
• By the CFI’s order, administrator Tan came to be
the agent of two different principals: the court and
the heirs of the deceased on the one hand, and
the majority co-owners of the subdivision on the
other, in managing and disposing of the lots of the
subdivision. This dual agency of Tan rendered him
incapable of independent defense of the estate's
interests against those of the majority co-owners.

ISSUES & HELD

(1) WON the CFI Order allowing the withdrawal of bank deposits
was in abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction?
YES.

(2) WON the CFI Order approving the power of attorney is valid.
NO.

RATIONALE
Issue #1
• Said withdrawal is foreign to the powers and duties of a
special administrator (Rule 80.2)
• The CFI order was issued without notice to, and hearing
of, the heirs of the deceased. The withdrawal of the bank
deposits may be viewed as within the powers and duties
of a special administrator; but actually, it is a waiver by
the special administrator of a prima facie exclusive right
of the intestate estate to the bank deposits in favor of the
2Page 1 of 1