Ocampo vs Ocampo Case Digest G.R. No. 187879 ; July 5, 2010

Ocampo vs Ocampo Case Digest 

G.R. No. 187879 ; July 5, 2010

PRINCIPLE/S:

Special Proceedings

a) Special administrator

A special administrator is an officer of the court who is subject to its supervision and control, expected to work for the best interest of the entire estate, with a view to its smooth administration and speedy settlement.33 When appointed, he or she is not regarded as an agent or representative of the parties suggesting the appointment.34 The principal object of the appointment of a temporary administrator is to preserve the estate until it can pass to the hands of a person fully authorized to administer it for the benefit of creditors and heirs, pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.

b) Appointment of Special administrators

- Selection or removal of special administrators is not governed by the rules regarding the selection or removal of regular administrator

- The probate court may appoint or remove special administrators based on grounds other than those enumerated in the Rules at its discretion

- Selection or removalof special administrators is at the discretion of the court as long as the discretion is exercised without grave abuse, and is based on reason, equity, justice, and legal principles, interference by higher courts is unwarranted

c) Appointment of Special administrators is interlocutory

Reason: The appointment or removal of special administrators is discretionary.

Effect: May be assailed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court

d) Removal of Special Administrator

Even if special administrators had already been appointed, once the probate court finds the appointees no longer entitled to its confidence, it is justified in withdrawing the appointment and giving no valid effect thereto

e) Giving of Bond is necessary to be appointed as special or regular administrator

Purpose of Filing a Bond an Administrator

1. The bond secures the performance of the duties and obligations of an administrator provided under Section 1 of Rule 81.

2. Section 4 of Rule 81 - The bond is conditioned on the faithful execution of the administration of the decedent’s estate requiring the special administrator to

(1) make and return a true inventory of the goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate of the deceased which come to his possession or knowledge;

(2) truly account for such as received by him when required by the court; and

(3) deliver the same to the person appointed as executor or regular administrator, or to such other person as may be authorized to receive them.

3. Compels the administrator, whether regular or special, to perform the trust reposed in, and discharge the obligations incumbent upon, him. This woud benefit of the creditors and the heirs.

f) Section 1 of Rule 81 - Duties and obligations of an administrator namely:

(1) to administer the estate and pay the debts;

(2) to perform all judicial orders;

(3) to account within one (1) year and at any other time when required by the probate court; and

(4) to make an inventory within three (3) months.

g) Sec. 1. Rule 78 of the Rules of Court – Who are incompetent to serve as executors or administrators.

No person is competent to serve as executor or administrator who:

(a) Is a minor;

(b) Is not a resident of the Philippines; and

(c) Is in the opinion of the court unfit to execute the duties of the trust by reason of drunkenness, improvidence, or want of understanding or integrity, or by reason of conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude.

h) Sec. 6. Rule 78 of the Rules of Court - When and to whom letters of administration granted.

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, administration shall be granted:

(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or both, in the discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of kin, requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to serve;

(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or the person selected by them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or widow, or next of kin, neglects for thirty (30) days after the death of the person to apply for administration or to request that administration be granted to some other person, it may be granted to one or more of the principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve;

(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be granted to such other person as the court may select.

i) Sec. 2. Rule 78 of the Rules of Court - Contents of petition for letters of administration.

A petition for letters of administration must be filed by an interested person and must show, so far as known to the petitioner:

(a) The jurisdictional facts;

(b) The names, ages, and residences of the heirs, and the names and residences of the creditors, of the decedent;

(c) The probable value and character of the property of the estate;

(d) The name of the person for whom letters of administration are prayed.

FACTS: Petitioners Dalisay et al. are the surviving wife and the children of Leonardo. Leonardo, together with his siblings Renato and Erlinda (Respondents), jointly controlled, managed, and administered the estate of their parents, Spouses Ocampo. Under such circumstance, Leonardo had been receiving his share consisting of one-third (1/3) of the total income generated from the properties of the estate. Subsequently, Leonardo died and he was survived by his wife and the children (Petitioners Dalisay). When Leonardo died, respondents took possession, control and management of the properties to the exclusion of petitioners and the petitoners no longer received the 1/3 portion of Leonardo.

Petitioners then initiated a petition for intestate proceedings in the RTC. Respondents, in their counter-petition prayed that they be appointed as special joint administrators of the estate of their parents. RTC granted respondents’ counter-petition. Petitioners in their Comment prayed that, in order to avoid further delay, letters of administration to serve as joint administrators of the subject estate be issued to respondents and Dalisay. RTC appointed Dalisay and Renato as special joint administrators of the estate of the deceased spouses. But RTC later revoked the appointment of Dalisay as co-special administratrix and substituted her with Erlinda. Petitioners filed a Motion to Terminate or Revoke the Special Administration. RTC granted this and revoked and terminated the appointment of Renato and Erlinda as joint special administrators and appointed Melinda as regular administratrix.

respondents filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA. CA ruled that RTC gravely abused its discretion in revoking respondents’ appointment as joint special administrators, and for appointing Melinda as regular administratrix without conducting a formal hearing to determine her competency to assume such role. Hence, this instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

ISSUE/S:

1)WON it was proper for the RTC to revoke the appointment of respondents as joint special administrators.

2) WON it was proper for the RTC to appointment Melinda as regular administrator.

HELD:

1) YES. Selection or removal of special administrators is not governed by the rules regarding the selection or removal of regular administrator. The probate court may appoint or remove special administrators based on grounds other than those enumerated in the Rules at its discretion. Selection or removalof special administrators is at the discretion of the court as long as the discretion is exercised without grave abuse, and is based on reason, equity, justice, and legal principles, interference by higher courts is unwarranted Indeed, even if special administrators had already been appointed, once the probate court finds the appointees no longer entitled to its confidence, it is justified in withdrawing the appointment and giving no valid effect thereto.

In this case, the RTC revoked respondents’ appointment as special administrators for failing to post their administrators’ bond and to submit an inventory and accounting as required of them, tantamount to failing to comply with its lawful orders. Hencethe revocation of respondents’ appointment as Special Administrator was proper

2) NO. Sec. 1 to 6 Rule 78 of the Rules of Court contains the provision for the determination of the person to be appointed as regular administrator. But in this case, the capacity, competency, and legality of Melinda’s appointment as such was not properly objected to by respondents despite being the next of kin to the decedent spouses, and was not threshed out by the RTC acting as a probate court in accordance with the above mentioned Rules. Hence, Melinda’s appointment as a regular administrator was not proper.

Melinda’s appointment is supposed to be revoked. However, having in mind the objective of facilitating the settlement of the estate of Vicente and Maxima and posting of bond by Melinda, with a view to putting an end to the squabbles of the heirs, Melinda’s appointment should be converted into one of special administration.