De Guzman v.

De Guzman-Carillo (MR)
GR No. L.-29276
May 18, 1978
Aquino, J.
Petitioner: Testate Estate of the Late Felix J. de Guzman. VICTORINO G. DE
GUZMAN, administrator-appellee
Respondent: CRISPINA DE GUZMAN- CARILLO, ARSENIO DE GUZMAN and HONORA
T A DE
GUZMAN-MENDIOLA, oppositors-appellants
Facts
Deceased testator was survived by 8 children and his will was probated
Letter of administration were issued to his son Doc Victorino pursuant to an
order of the court in a special proceeding
One of the properties left was a residential house, adjudicated to the 8
children pro-indiviso, each being given a 1/8 share
The project of partition was signed by all children and approved by court
order dated April 14, 1967, but subject to the outcome of the instant
accounting incident:
o Administrator (Victorino) submitted 4 accounting reports for June 1974September 1967
o 3 heirs interposed objections to his disbursements, which breakdown
consists of: expenses for the improvement and renovation of the
house, living expenses of Librada de Guzman while occupying the
home without paying rent and other expenses (which will be
mentioned more specifically in the ratio)
o the probate court instructed the administrator not to make these
expenses without first seeking authority of court such was obtained
by order. It is from that order that the oppositors now appeal to the SC
Issue
WON the expenses made by the administrator were necessary expenses in the
care, management and settlement of the estateYES to some, NO to others,
discusses in the ratio. The outline topic is IV of the ratio
Ratio
Preliminaries
court cited important provisions. The one cited below is the only important
one for the ratio. But if you wanna check the others: sec. 1(c) rule 81, sec.
8,9,10 rule 85
An executor or administrator is allowed the necessary expenses in
the care, management, and settlement of the estate entitled to
possess and manage the decedents real and personal estate as long as it
is necessary for the payment of the debts and the expenses of
administration accountable for the whole decedents estate which has
come into his possession, with all the interest, profit, and income thereof, and
with the proceeds of so much of such estate as is sold by him, at the price at

which it was sold (Sec. 3, Rule 84; Secs. 1 and 7, Rule 85, Rules of
Court)
But actually, none of the provisions are important to the outline topic. Haha

I. expenses for the renovation and improvement of the family home

includes repair of terrace and interior, bathroom, fence
according the oppositors theyre not necessary expenses of administration,
as clarified in the Lizarraga case: administration expenses should be those
which are necessary for the management of the estate, for protecting it
against destruction or deterioration, and, possibly, for the production of
fruits. They are expenses entailed for the preservation and productivity of the
estate and its management for purposes of liquidation, payment of debts,
and distribution of the residue among the persons entitled thereto.
SC: the partition was pro-indiviso; 5 of the 8 consented to the expenses; they
obviously redounded to the benefit of the ownerspreservation of home and
social standing. Thus, probate court did not err
II. expenses incurred by Librada de Guzman as occupant of the house without
paying rent
Includes house help, light and water bill, gas, oil etc.
Probate court allowed the use of estate income for this simply because the
occupany of that heir did not prevent the others from themselves occupying
also
SC: these were personal expenses, inuring only to her benefit and should not
be charged against the estate. She should shoulder these. Trial court erred in
approving these
III. other expenses
Includes Steno notes, representation expenses, expenses in celebration of
the first death anniversary
SC: all disallowed because they have nothing to do with care, management
and settlement of estate. Only expenses for lawyers subsistence and gift to
the physician attending to the deceased when he was still alive should be
allowed
IV. irrigation fee (OUTLINE TOPIC ALERT!!! ETO LANG!!!)
Oppositors: should not be a deductible expense on the ground that it seems
to be a duplication of the item of P1,320 as irrigation fee for the same 196667 crop year
Administrator explained that the P1,320 represented allotments for
irrigation fees to the 8 tenants who cultivated Intan crop and were treated as
assumed expenses deducting from farming expenses from the value of the
net harvests
SC: the explanation was not clear but it was not disputed by the oppositors.
The sum of P1,049.58 was paid to Penaranda Irrigation System as shown by
an OR. It was included in the administrators accounting as part of farming
expenses and properly allowed as legitimate expense of administration