KALAW vs IAC

Facts
Carlos Lim Kalaw died INTESTATE in 1970. One of his children, Victoria Lim Kalaw, thus filed a petition
for issuance of letters of administration with the CFI Manila, naming Carlos surviving heirs as: Ana Lim
Kalaw, Victoria Lim Kalaw, Pura Lim Kalaw and Rosa Lim Kalaw. Ana was the one named by the court as
special adminstratrix in 1974.
In 1984, respondent Rosa Lim Kalaw together with Victoria and Pura, filed a motion to remove Ana as
administratrix of their fathers negligence and to appoint instead Rosa, on the ground of Anas negligence
in her duties as administratrix, specifically that of failing to render an accounting of her administration (as
required under Sec.8 of Rule 851) since her appointment, despite several orders supposedly served to her
by the court. Ana opposed this motion, saying that she didnt know who to render the accounting to as
the judge assigned to the intestate proceeding was promoted to the CA (resulting in a vacant sala for a
while) while his replacement judge died of a cardiac arrest soon after appointment.
The Trial Court removed Ana as administratrix, pursuant to Rule 2, Sec. 82 2, and the IAC affirmed this,
hence this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction to annul the lower
courts decision.
Issue: w/n Anas removal as administratrix of her fathers estate is valid
Held: YES.
The rendering of an accounting by an administrator of his administration within one year from his
appointment is mandatory, as shown by the use of the word "shall" in said rule (Sec. 8 of Rule 85). The
only exception is when the Court otherwise directs because of extensions of time for presenting claims
against the estate or for paying the debts or disposing the assets of the estate, which do not exist in the
case at bar.

1 Sec. 8 RULE 85. When executor or administrator to render account. - Every

executor or administrator shall render an account of his administration within one
(1) year from the time of receiving letters testamentary or of administration, unless
the court otherwise directs because of extensions of time for presenting claims
against, or paying the debts of, the estate, or for disposing of the estate; and he
shall render such further accounts as the court may require until the estate is wholly
settled.
2 Sec. 2. Court may remove or accept resignation of executor or administrator;
Proceedings upon death, resignation, or removal. - If an executor or administrator
neglects to render his account and settle the estate according to law, or to perform
an order or judgment of the court, or a duty expressly provided by these rules, or
absconds, or becomes insane, or otherwise incapable or unsuitable to discharge the
trust, the court may remove him, or, in its discretion, may permit him to resign.
When an executor or administrator dies, resigns, or is removed the remaining
executor or administrator may administer the trust alone, unless the court grants
letters to someone to act with him. If there is no remaining executor or
administrator, administration may be granted to any suitable person.

Furthermore, petitioners excuse that the sala where the intestate proceeding was pending was vacant
most of the time deserves scant consideration since petitioner never attempted to file with said court an
accounting report of her administration despite the fact that at one time or another, Judge Sundiam and
Judge Tiongco were presiding over said sala during their incumbency.
Likewise, her subsequent compliance in rendering an accounting report did not purge her of her
negligence in not rendering an accounting for more than six years, which justifies petitioners removal as
administratrix and the appointment of private respondent in her place as mandated by Section 2 of Rule
82 of the Rules of Court.
The removal of an administrator is within the discretion of the courts.