12. PEDRO DE GUZMAN v. JUDGE ZOSIMO ANGELES FACTS: 1.

Manolito de Guzman died in Makati and left personal and real properties. 2. Elaine de Guzman (widow and private respondent) filed a petition for settlement of his intestate estate with list of creditors, probable value of property, compulsory heirs, grant of letters of administration. 3. She filed a motion for writ of possession over 5 vehicles registered under name of Manolito but were in possession of Elaine's father-in-law, Pedro. On the same day, court issued an order directing sheriff to notify Pedro of hearing. Elaine also filed a motion to be appointed as Special Administratrix, which the court granted. 4. Court issued an order to assist Elaine in preserving the estate of Manolito by appointing sheriffs and militarymen. Pedro resisted when they tried to take the vehicles on the ground that they were personal properties and he claims that a near shoot-out occurred. Pedro alleges that he was not given notice of appointment of Elaine as administratrix and court orders were patent nullities. ISSUE: W/N a probate court may appoint a special administratrix and issue a writ of possession of alleged properties of a decedent for the preservation of the estate in a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate even BEFORE the probate court causes NOTICE to be served upon all interested parties? HELD: NO, according to Sec. 3, Rule 79 of the Rules of Court. 1. Facts to be alleged in the application before a court may acquire jurisdiction over the case for probate of will and administration of properties include residence of the deceased and other indispensable facts and circumstances. 2. Court had acquired jurisdiction over the proceedings in the instant case upon filing of Elaine's petition for settlement because she alleged all the jurisdictional facts, pursuant to Sec. 2, Rule 79 ROC. 3. However, there's a need to differentiate between jurisdiction of the probate court over the proceedings for the administration of an estate and its jurisdiction over persons interested in the settlement of the estate of the deceased person 4. Probate court must cause notice through publication of the petition after receiving the same, otherwise the proceeding for the settlement of the estate is void and should be annulled. The requirement as to notice is essential to the validity of the proceeding in order that no person may be deprived of his right to property w/o due process of law. 5. Notice through publication of the petition is jurisdictional, absence of which makes court orders affecting other persons subsequent to the petition void and subject to annulment. Need for proper notice even for the appointment of a special administrator is apparent. 6. No notice was caused to be given by the probate court in the instant case before it acted on Elaine's motions and deprived Pedro (biggest creditor of Manolito's estate) of participating in the proceedings as he has similar interest in the preservation of the estate. Thus, case remanded to lower court for proper hearing with notice to all.

Rule 78 to 90 Case Digest # 1

Gonzales vs. Aguinaldo G.R. No. 74769; September 28, 1990

BEATRIZ F. GONZALES, petitioner, vs. HON. ZOILO AGUINALDO, Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 143, Makati, Metro Manila and TERESA F. OLBES, respondents.

Facts :
Special Proceedings No. 021, pending before the court a quo, is an intestate proceeding involving the estate of the deceased Doa Ramona Gonzales Vda. de Favis. Doa Ramona is survived by her four (4) children who are her only heirs, namely, Asterio Favis, Beatriz F. Gonzales, Teresa F. Olbes, and Cecilia Favis-Gomez. On 25 October 1983, the court a quo appointed petitioner Beatriz F. Gonzales and private respondent Teresa Olbes as co-administratices of the estate. On 11 November 1984, while petitioner Beatriz F. Gonzales was in the United States accompanying her ailing husband who was receiving medical treatment in that country, private respondent Teresa Olbes filed a motion, dated 26 November 1984, to remove Beatriz F. Gonzales as coadministratrix, on the ground that she is incapable or unsuitable to discharge the trust and had committed acts and omissions detrimental to the interest of the estate and the heirs. Copy of said motion was served upon petitioner's then counsel of record, Atty. Manuel Castro who, since 2 June 1984, had been suspended by the Supreme Court from the practice of law throughout the Philippines. After the filing of private respondent's aforesaid motion, respondent Judge Zoilo Aguinaldo issued an Order dated 4 December 1984 which required Beatriz F. Gonzales and the other parties to file their opposition, if any, thereto. Only Asterio Favis opposed the removal of Beatriz F. Gonzales as coadministratrix, as the latter was still in the United States attending to her ailing husband. In an Order dated 15 January 1985, respondent Judge cancelled the letters of administration granted to Beatriz F. Gonzales and retained Teresa Olbes as the administratrix of the estate of the late Ramona Gonzales.

Issue :
Whether or not there were proper grounds or satisfactory cause for the removal of Beatriz F. Gonzales as appointed co-administrator of the estate of Doa Ramona Gonzales Vda. de Favis.

Held :

The court ruled in the negative. No satisfactory cause for her removal was shown; the court a quo gravely abused its discretion in removing her. Stated differently, petitioner Beatriz F. Gonzales was removed without just cause. Her removal was therefore improper. The appointment of petitioner Beatriz F. Gonzales was valid. While it is conceded that the court is invested with ample discretion in the removal of an administrator, it however must have some fact legally before it in order to justify a removal. There must be evidence of an act or omission on the part of the administrator not conformable to or in disregard of the rules or the orders of the court, which it deems sufficient or substantial to warrant the removal of the administrator. In making such a determination, the court must exercise good judgment, guided by law and precedents. Respondent Judge removed petitioner Beatriz F. Gonzales as co-administratrix of the estate also on the ground that she had been absent from the country since October 1984 and had not returned as of 15 January 1985, the date of the questioned order, leaving respondent Olbes alone to administer the estate. From facts shown in her motion for reconsideration, we show that petitioner had never abandoned her role as co-administratrix of the estate nor had she been remiss in the fulfilment of her duties. Suffice it to state, temporary absence in the state does not disqualify one to be an administrator of the estate. Thus, as held in re Mc Knight's Will, a temporary residence outside of the state, maintained for the benefit of the health of the executors' family, is not such a removal from the state as to necessitate his removal as executor.
8. VIRGINIA GARCIA FULE, and HONORABLE SEVERO A. MALVAR, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Laguna, Branch Vl, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, * PRECIOSA B. GARCIA and AGUSTINA B. GARCIA, respondents. G.R. No. L-40502 November 29, 1976 x---------------------------------------------------x VIRGINIA GARCIA FULE, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE ERNANI C. PAO, Presiding Judge of Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City, Branch XVIII, and PRECIOSA B. GARCIA, respondents. G.R. No. L-42670 November 29, 1976 MARTIN, J.: FACTS: 1. On April 26, 1973 Amado G. Garcia died, he owned property in Calamba, Laguna. 2. On May 2, 1973, Virginia G. Fule field with CFI Laguna a petition for letters of administration and ex parte appointment as special administratix over the estate. Motion was granted. a. there was an allegation that the wife was Carolina Carpio 3. Preciosa B. Garcia, wife of deceased, and in behalf of their child: Agustina B. Garcia opposed, which was denied by CFI. a. Preciosa alleged that Fule was a creditor of the estate, and as a mere illegitimate sister of the deceased is not entitled to succeed from him 4. CA reversed and annulled the appointment of Fule. a. Preciosa became special administratrix upon a bond of P30k. ISSUES: a.) Venue v. jurisdiction b.) What does the word resides in Revised Rules of Court Rule 73 Section 1 Mean?

c.) Who is entitled? HELD/RATIO: a.) RULE 73 SECTION 1. if the decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of administration granted, and his estate settled at the CFI in the province in which he resides at the time of his death, And if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the CFI of any province in which he had estate. The court 1st taking cognizance of the settlement of the estate of a decedent shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts. The jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of his estate, shall not be contested in a suit or proceedings, except in an appeal from that court, in the original case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record. Fules own submitted Death Certificate shows that the deceased resided in QC at the time of his death, therefore the venue of Laguna was improper. Venue is subject to waiver (RULE 4 SECTION 4), but Preciosa did not waive it, merely requested for alternative remedy to assert her rights as surviving spouse. However, venue is distinct from jurisdiction which is conferred by Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended to be with CFIs independently from the place of residence of the deceased. RULE 79 SECTION 2, demands that the petition should show the existence of jurisdiction to make the appointment sought, and should allege all the necessary facts such as death, name, last residence, existence, situs of assets, intestacy, right of person who seeks administration as next of kin, creditor or otherwise to be appointed. b.) Resides ex vi termini actual residence - Elastic and should be interpreted in the light of the object or purpose of the statute or rule in which it is employed. - Same meaning as inhabitant. - Popular sense the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode - Must be more than temporary Distinguished from legal residence or domicile requires bodily presence and an intention to make it ones domicile.

c.) Preciosa is prima facie entitled to the appointment of special administratrix.

The New Rules RULE 80 SECTION 1 broadened the basis for appointment of special administrator (temporarily) to take possession and charge of the estates of the deceased until the questions causing the delay are decided and (regular) executors or administrators appointed. Old rules basis ay: appeal of allowance of disallowance of a will; New: added - xxx delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration by any cause (includes parties cannot agree among themselves) including an appeal of allowance of disallowance of a will, the court may appoint a xxx The discretion to appoint a special administrator or not is with the probate court, the paramount consideration is the beneficial interest of the appointee in the estate of the decedent. In re: Fule, it is not required that the administratrix be entitled to share in the estate of the decedent only that one is entitled to the administration; but the preference of Preciosa is with sufficient reason the widow would have the right of succession over a portion of the exclusive property of the decedent, besides her share in the conjugal partnership. For such reason, she would have as such, if not more, interest in administering the entire estate correctly than any other next of kin.

DISPOSITION: Fules petition DENIED.