Proceedings thereupon. — If after letters of administration have been granted on the estate of a decedent as if he had died intestate, his will is proved and allowed by the court, the letters of administration shall be revoked and all powers thereunder cease, and the administrator shall forthwith sur-render the letters to the court, and sur-render his account within such time as the court directs. Proceedings for the issuance of letters testamentary or of administration under the will shall be as hereinbefore provided.
NOTES AND CASES:
1. Rule on Precedence of Probate of Will
Where the deceased left a will, the proceeding is testate and where there is no will, the proceeding is intestate. The probate of the will is and therefore, takes precedence over intestate Thus, if in the course of the intestate proceedings, it is found out that the decedent had left a last will, proceedings for the probate of the latter should replace the intestate proceedings even if at that stage, an administrator had already been appointed, the latter being required to render a final account and turn over the estate in his possession to the executor subsequently appointed.
This, however, is understood to be without prejudice that the pro-ceeding shall continue as an
1, Rule 75.
v. Court of Appeals, 53 SCRA 360.
v. Court of First Instance Occidental, 33 SCRA 252, 259.
106
Rule 82 REVOCATION OF ADMINISTRATION, DEATH RESIGNATION, A N D REMOVAL OF EXECUTORS A N D
ADMINISTRATORS
2. Conversion of an Intestate into Testate Proceeding Whether the intestate proceeding already commenced should be discontinued and a new proceeding under a separate number and title should be constituted is entirely a matter of form and lies within the sound discretion of the court. In no manner does it prejudice the substantial rights of any of the heirs or
Generally, consolidation and joint hearing of the two cases would have been proper if they do not involve settlement of the estate of a decedent, which is covered by a special provision of the Rules of Court, namely Section Rule 73, the specific command of which should be
It has been held that the probate of the will is It is anomalous that the estate of a person who died intestate should be settled in an intestate proceeding. Therefore, the intestate case should be consolidated with the testate proceeding and the judge assigned to the testate proceeding should continue hearing the two
The mere discovery, however, of a document purporting to be the last will and testament of the decedent after appointment of an administrator and assumption that the decedent died intestate does not, ipso facto nullify the letters of administration already issued or even authorize their revocation until the will has been proved and
SEC. 2. Court may remove or accept resignation of execu-tor or administraexecu-tor. 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 per-form 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
v. Santiago, 85 Phil. 268, 270; Intestate Estate of Wolfson, 45 SCRA 381.
v. 74 Phil. 479 and 98 Phil. 249; Baluyot v. Panio, 71 SCRA v. 129 SCRA 33.
v. Teodoro, 99 Phil. 413.
86.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS A N D SPECIAL R U L E S Rule 82 IMPLEMENTING THE FAMILY COURTS ACT OF 1997
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.
NOTES AND CASES:
Purpose of Administration
The purpose of administration is the liquidation of the estate and distribution of the residue among the heirs and legatees. Liqui-dation means the determination of all the assets of the estate and payment of all debts and expenses. Approval of the project of
parti-tion does not necessarily terminate
2. Degree of Care Expected of Administrator
In one case, the Supreme Court explained: Sotero Jr.
is the Administrator of the estate of his deceased mother Rosenda as such administrator, he occupies a position of the highest trust and confidence. He is required to exercise reasonable diligence and act in entire good faith in the performance of that trust. Al-though he is not a guarantor or insurer of the safety of the estate nor is he expected to be infallible, yet the same degree of prudence, care and judgment which a person of a fair average capacity and ability exercises in similar transactions of his own, serves as the standard by which his conduct is to be
In the discharge of his functions, the administrator should act with utmost circumspection in order to preserve the estate and guard against its dissipation so as not to prejudice its creditors and the heirs of the decedent who are entitled to the net residue thereof. In the case at bar, the sale was made necessary "in order to settle other existing obligations of the This purpose is clearly mani-fested in the Motion For Authority to Sell filed by Dionisio, Jr. The
Surety v. Quebrar, 127 SCRA 3 0 1 . v. Genato, 137 85-86.
82 REVOCATION OF ADMINISTRATION, DEATH, 2 RESIGNATION, A N D REMOVAL O F EXECUTORS A N D
ADMINISTRATORS
v. Genato, supra.
v. 53 Phil. 155; See Vda. de v. 64 Phil. 888.
re M c K n i g h f s Will, 80 N e w York Supplement 2 5 1 , cited in Gonzales v.
110 SCRA
subsisting obligations referred to, although not specified must be those due and owing to the creditors of the estate and also the taxes due the government. In order to guarantee faithful compliance with the authority granted, respondent Judge, through the aforesaid Or-der made it an emphatic duty on the part of the administrator
x x x to submit to this Court for approval the transactions made by
3. Grounds For Removal
The grounds for removal of an administrator are as follows:
a. Neglects to render an account and settle the estate ac-cording to
b. Neglects to perform an order or judgment of the court;
Neglects to perform a duty expressly provided by these rules;
d. Absconds, or becomes insane, or otherwise incapable or unsuitable to discharge the trust.
4. Temporary Absence Not a Ground for Removal Temporary absence in the state does not disqualify one to be an administrator of the estate. Thus, as held In re Will, a temporary residence outside of the state, maintained for the benefit of the health of the executor's family, is not such a removal from the state as to necessitate his removal as executor.
Temporary absence from the state on account of ill health, or on account of business, or for purposes of travel or pleasure, would not necessarily establish the fact that an executor has removed from the state, within the intent of the
The removal of an administrator does not lie on the whims, caprices and dictates of the heirs or beneficiaries of the estate, nor
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS A N D SPECIAL RULES Rule 82 IMPLEMENTING THE FAMILY COURTS OF 1997
on the belief of the court that it would result in orderly and efficient administration. In re William's the court held:
A county court having appointed a stranger administrator af-ter the relatives of decedent had lost their right of precedence, could not remove the appointee merely because of the request of relatives and the belief upon the part of the court that the best interest of deceased would be thereby subserved, since the administrator had such an interest as entitled him to protection from removal without
5. Discretion in Removal of Administrator
The settled rule is that the removal of an administrator under Section 2 of Rule 82 lies within the discretion of the Court appoint-ing him. As aptly expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Degala v. Ceniza and sufficiency of any ground for removal should thus be determined by said court, whose sensibili-ties are in the first place, affected by any act or omission on the part of the administrator not conformable to or in disregard of the rules or the orders of the court." Consequently, appellate tribunals are disinclined to interfere with the action taken by a probate court in the matter of the removal of an executor or administrator unless positive error or gross abuse of discretion is
In a case, sufficient evidence was adduced that petitioner failed to pay the estate tax. Petitioner also failed to render an ac-counting of the estate and settle the same according to law. Further-more, he involved the heirs in a transaction with Pawn-shop which, because of petitioner's failure to honor his part of the bargain, resulted in the filing of a suit by Villarica against the heirs.
The Court upheld the removal of the Administrator.
The determination of a person's suitability for the office of judi-cial administrator rests, to a great extent, in the sound judgment of the court exercising the power of appointment and said judgment is not to be interfered with on appeal unless the said court is clearly in
re 164 SW 307, cited in Gonzales v. Sept.
1990, 190 SCRA 112.
Phil. 791.
v. Borromeo, 97 Phil. 549; Matute v. Court of Appeals, 26 SCRA 768.
Rule 82 REVOCATION OF ADMINISTRATION, DEATH RESIGNATION, A N D REMOVAL OF EXECUTORS A N D
ADMINISTRATORS
The removal of an administrator under Section 2 of Rule 82 lies within the discretion of the court appointing
6. Grounds Enumerated Not Exclusive
The grounds enumerated by the foregoing rule are not exclu-sive. Thus, where the appointment of an administrator was pro-cured thru false or incorrect representations, the power of the bate court to revoke the appointment on that ground is beyond ques-tion. This is so, because the position of administrator is one of confi-dence. Once the court finds the appointee to the position not entitled to such confidence, it is justified in withdrawing the appointment and giving no valid efficacy
7. There Must Be Evidence To Justify Removal While the court is invested with ample discretion in the re-moval of an administrator, it must, however, have some fact legally before it in order to justify such 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
A mere importunity by some of the heirs of the deceased, there being no factual and substantial bases therefor, is not ad-equate ratiocination for the removal of private respondent. Suffice it to state that the removal of an administrator does not lie on the whims, caprices and dictates of the heirs or beneficiaries of the
SEC. 3. before revocation, or removal to be valid. — The lawful acts of an executor or administrator before the revocation of his letters testamentary or of admin-istration, or before his resignation or removal, shall have the like validity as if there had been no such revocation, resigna-tion, or removal.
v. Court of Tax Appeals, 18 3 7 1 .
Mendiola v. Court of Appeals, Oct. 190 421.
v. Dizon, 76 Phil. 209; 3 4 5 4 (1980
v. et supra.
v. Court of Appeals, Aug. 1992, 212 SCRA 413.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS A N D SPECIAL R U L E S Rule 82 IMPLEMENTING THE FAMILY COURTS ACT OF 1997