1 A.M. No. (2170-MC) P-1356 November 21, 1979 HON. REMIGIO E. ZARI, complainant, vs. DIOSDADO S. FLORES, respondent.

FERNANDEZ, J.: In a letter dated July 15, 1976 addressed to the Supreme Court, Hon. Remigio E. Zari, Presiding Judge of Branch VI. City Court of Quezon City, recommended the dismissal from the service of Mr. Diosdado S. Flores, Deputy Clerk of Court of Branch VI, City Court, on the following grounds: 1. Conviction for libel on April 28, 1967, (Criminal Case No. Q- 7171), Branch IV, Court of First Instance, Quezon City), a crime involving moral turpitude. He was sentenced to pay a fine of P500.00, which he paid on July 18, 1974, under Receipt No. 4736418. 2. Presistent attempts to unduly influence the undersigned amounting to undue interest in cases pending before Branch VI as shown by his handwritten notes to the undersigned and to my present deputy clerk of Court, Atty. Reynaldo Elcano. On March 8, 1976, Mr. Flores was relieved from his position as Deputy Clerk of Court upon request of the undersigned primarily to dissociate myself from these actuations of Mr. Flores, which I strongly disapproved of, and to avail my Court of the services of a full-fledged lawyer with unquestionable integrity. After his transfer, as can be seen from his handwritten notes, he persisted in taking this unwarranted course of action in at least three (3) cases of Branch VI. 3. Gross discourtesy to superior officers as manifested by his uncalled for and unjustified use of strong and contemptuous language in addressing the City Judges, when he wrote a letter, dated March 11, 1976. 1 In a resolution of this Court dated July 29, 1976, Deputy Clerk of Court Diosdado S. Flores was required to file his answer to the letter of Judge Remigio E. Zari and this case was transferred to the First Division. 2 The respondent filed his answers 3 on August 12, 1976 wherein he alleged, among others, that his conviction for libel did not involve moral turpitude; that the then Commissioner Abelardo Subido, who was also convicted of the crime of libel and was fined P5,000.00, had approved his appointment as Deputy Clerk of Court of Branch VI of the City Court of Quezon City; that the respondent never tried to unduly influence the complainant in the discharge of the latter's duties and responsibilities; that while respondent's language in his letter dated March 11, 1976 is strong, the same could not be considered contemptuous either directly or indirectly, in as much as he was merely expressing the sentiments of an aggrieved employee who deserves a better treatment from his superior after more than six years and nine months of highly dedicated and very efficient service in the City Court of Quezon City; that if ever respondent requested favors from his superior, these were all done in the spirit of friendship which the complainant professed to him before he left Branch VI of the City Court of Quezon City on March 9, 1976; that from October 15, 1975 up to his illegal transfer on March 8, 1976, the respondent was practically doing the work of the complainant; that the respondent has tutored the complainant on the fine interpretation and application of the law; that it was Judge Zari who tried to corrupt him as may be gathered from the following instances: On January 8, 1976, after the trial in Criminal Case No VI-5783 vs. Juanito Chua and two criminal cases against Emerito Lim, Judge Zari instructed the respondent to conduct an ocular inspection on the illegal constructions, subject of the cases; that Judge Zari, likewise, told the respondent to join him for lunch at Alfredo's Steakhouse in Quezon City; that after conducting the ocular inspection, the respondent proceeded to Alfredo's Steakhouse where he joined Judge Zari, Fiscal Loja and the defense counsel of Chua and Lim; that thereafter, Judge Zari directed the

2 respondent not to prepare anymore his report on the ocular inspection to the site; that up to the time of his illegal transfer, the respondent did not see the records of said cases anymore; that in Criminal Case No. VI-166624 vs. Corazon and Macaria Tolentino, for the crime of estafa, the respondent was instructed to convict both the accused because the complainant was a relative of a certain Judge Erochi; and that in Criminal Cases Nos. VI-170682 and VI-170689 versus Gerundio Villanueva y Elazo, Dominador Garcia y Orteza and Balbino Domingo y Ramos, for the crime of theft, he was instructed by Judge Zari to convict the accused Dominador Garcia y Orteza because according to said judge, the complainant is AVESCO. In a resolution dated September 1, 1976, 4 this Court required Judge Zari to file a reply to the answer of the respondent within ten (10) days from notice thereof. The complainant alleged in his reply to the answer of the respondent that he had not allowed the respondent to interfere in the preparation of orders and decisions; that while the complainant is aware of his limitations, he is certainly not so naive as to allow someone not a member of the Philippine Bar to "tutor" and give him finer interpretation of the law; that he admits that Criminal Cases Nos. VI-5783 against Juanito Chua and VI-5788-5789 against Emerito Lim are pending before this court; that he did not call the respondent to his chamber and instruct him to conduct an ocular inspection on the illegal constructions; that he did not invite the respondent for lunch that day; that the truth was that after the trial, he went to Alfredo's Steakhouse in the company of his fiscal, Fiscal Guillermo Loja; that while in the said place, the complainant was surprised to see the respondent in the company of the accused; that he counseled the respondent to be more circumspect as these people had cases before his sala; that it is true that from then on up to the relief of the respondent on March 8, 1976, the records of the aforesaid case could not be found by the respondent because the complainant had the records brought inside his chamber in order to forestall any attempt on the part of the respondent to manipulate the records; that he did not instruct the respondent to convict the accused in Criminal Case No. VI-166624 and in Criminal Cases Nos. VI-170682 and VI-170689 just because the complainant is a relative of a certain Judge Erochi and AVESCO, respectively; and that he requested Atty. Reynaldo Elcano to affix his initial in all orders, decisions and sentences in order to pinpoint responsibility. 5 In his reply, the complainant additionally charged that when the respondent applied for the position of Deputy Clerk of Court, Branch VI, City Court of Quezon City, he submitted, among others, an affidavit dated June 10, 1969 that contains the following statement "That I am a person of good moral character and integrity and have no administrative, criminal or police record;" that the respondent also accomplished Civil Service Form No. 212 (1965) which was subscribed and sworn to before then Judge Oscar A. Inocentes; that in the aforesaid data sheet, the respondent admits having acted as counsel for three companies; and that the giving of legal advice by notaries and others who are not admitted to the practice of law is dangerous to the welfare of the community, because such persons have not demonstrated their capacity by submitting to examinations lawfully established in the practice of law. This administrative case was referred to the Executive Judge of Rizal, Quezon City, for investigation, report and recommendation after City Judge Minerva Genovea and City Judge Aloysius Alday had been allowed to inhibit themselves from investigating this case. 6 District Judge Sergio A. F. Apostol who conducted the investigation of this administrative case recommended that the respondent be separated from the service on the following findings: The first charge is "conviction for libel which is a crime allegedly involving moral turpitude." Presidential Decree No. 807, Sec. 36(b) No. 10 provides that one of the grounds for disciplinary action is "conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude."

3 Evidence adduced by the complainant which was admitted by the respondent was that on April 28, 1967 respondent was convicted of the crime of Libel in Criminal Case No. Q-7171 of Branch IV of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City. Respondent was sentenced to pay a fine of P5,000.00 which he paid on July 18, 1974 under Official Receipt No. 276418. Moral turpitude has been defined as including any act done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. 7 Some of the particular crimes which have been held to involve moral turpitude are adultery, concubinage, 8 rape, arson, evasion of income tax, barratry, bigamy, blackmail, bribery, 9criminal conspiracy to smuggle opium, dueling, embezzlement, extortion, forgery, libel, making fraudulent proof of loss on insurance contract, murder, mutilation of public records, fabrication of evidence, offenses against pension laws, perjury, seduction under promise of marriage, 10estafa, 11 falsification of public document, 12 estafa thru falsification of public document. 13 "Moral turpitude" has been defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellow men, to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. 14 It implies something immoral in itself, regardless of the fact that it is punishable by law or not. It must not merely be mala prohibita but, the act itself must be inherently immoral. The doing of the act itself, and not its prohibition by statute fixes the moral turpitude. 15 Moral turpitude does not, however, include such acts as are not of themselves immoral but whose illegality lies in the fact of their being positively prohibited. 16Hence, the crime of illegal possession of firearm or ammunition does not involve moral turpitude for under our laws, what is punishable is the possession of a firearm or ammunition without a license or authority. 17 Bribery is admittedly a felony involving moral turpitude. 18 However in another, the Supreme Court seems to imply that libel is not a crime involving moral turpitude. The mere filing of an information for libel, or serious slander, against a municipal officer is not a ground for suspending him from office, as such offenses do not necessarily involve moral turpitude. 19 When respondent submitted his application for the position of Deputy Clerk of Court of Branch VI, City Court of Quezon City, he submitted among others an affidavit dated June 10, 1969, which reads as follows: That I am a person of good moral character and integrity and have no administrative, criminal or police record. On blank space of a personal data sheet opposite question No. 10, which asked if applicant has previously been convicted of a criminal offense, accused placed no. It was later discovered that accused was previously convicted of theft. Accused was acquitted of falsification of public document under Art. 171, par. 4, because there is no legal obligation to reveal previous conviction. 20 However he maybe guilty of perjury under Art. 183. 21 One of the grounds for disciplinary action under PD 807, Sec. 36(b) under No. 13 is "falsification of public documents." The second charge is "persistent attempts to unduly influence the complainant amounting to undue interest in cases pending before Branch VI as shown by his handwritten notes to the complainant and to his present Deputy Clerk of Court, Atty. Reynaldo Elcano."

4 Respondent admitted that in writing the four (4) notes (Exhibits "F", "F-1", "F-2", & "F-3"), he intervened for and in behalf of Gaw Chin in Criminal Case No. VI-6196 pending before the sala of the complainant because the accused was a compadre of his friend, Salvador Estrada. On the other hand, the defense of the respondent is that he was practically doing the work of the complainant and tutoring him in the finer interpretation and application of the law, and he was preparing the decisions in both criminal and civil cases. Thus he was not trying to influence the complainant. The notes marked as Exhibits "F", "F-1, "F-2", & "F-3" speak for themselves. There is no need for the undersigned to quote the same. A proposition by an attorney to his client to visit with his wife the family of the judge before whom the client's cause is to be heard, and to endeavor, in conversation thus to be had in advance of the hearing, to commit the judge to an expression of opinion favorable to the client's case warrants his dismissal from the bar. 22 The acts of the respondent amounts to conducts prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
23

The Third charge is "discourtesy to superior Officers as manifested by respondent in calling for and unjust use of strong and contemptuous language in addressing the city judges when he wrote the letter, dated March 11, 1976." To quote the pertinent provisions of Exhibit "D": 'By the tenor of your reply, you have made the change of heart and have developed cold feet. You have badly shaken my belief in your credibility. Indeed, you are truly a woman, very fickle and unpredictable, but very impulsive. I take this as a clear indication of your desire to enlist the sympathies and, if possible, like the other five (5) judges, involved them in the mess originally of your own making and design and align them with you against me, hoping to impress upon me that by the tyranny of numbers, I will be convinced that mine is a lost cause. However, I regret to inform the six of you that by your conduct, you have dismally failed to live up to your oaths, ... Kindly pardon me if I say that, the six of you must be out of your wits when you all decided to lay the blame on me and condemned without trial for the alleged inefficiency. Yes, when you all decided to sacrifice me you are all laboring under deep and nagging hallucinations, induced and prompted by your serious concern to save the face of a colleague. By the way, could any of the Honorable Judges of Branches I, III, V & IX honestly and truthfully say the public service in their respective branches is efficient, so that they could now come to the succor of a colleague and are also competent to promote the efficiency in Branch VI. My God, if that is true, promotions of Judges in the City Court would be fast, the Purge in the Judiciary would not have affected Quezon City and the unprepared and the inexperienced would not have come to the Bench.' Respondent reasoned out that the use of strong language by him in his letter was justified and very much called for it being the indubitable manifestation of the indignation and disgust of the respondent, urged upon him by the complainant who engineered the respondent's illegal transfer from Branch VI of the City Court of Quezon City which he holds a valid and subsisting appointment to the Appeal and Docket Division, by virtue of a letter of the Executive Judge (Exhibit "43"), to quote the pertinent provision of which:

5 'as a measure to promote more efficient public service, after due and circumspect deliberation by and among the judges. ' pursuant to the authority granted to the executive judge under Administrative Order No. 6 of the Supreme Court which provides as follows: To re-assign temporarily the personnel of one branch (sala) to another branch (sala) or to the Office of the Clerk of Court, in case of vacancy in the position of Presiding Judge of a branch (sala), or when the interest of the service requires. In the latter case, the assignment shall be made in consultation with the Presiding Judge of the branch (sala) concerned; and in case of disagreement, the assignment of the Executive Judge shall be effective immediately, unless revoked by the Supreme Court. The transfer was made in consultation with the presiding judge of the branch concerned who is the complainant in this case. A detail is the movement of an employee from one agency to another without the issuance of an appointment and shall be allowed, only for a limited period in the case of employees occupying professional, technical and scientific positions. If the employee believes that there is no justification for the detail, he may appeal his case to the commission. Pending appeal, the decision to detail the employee shall be executory unless otherwise ordered by the commission. 24 An employee may be reassigned from one organizational unit to another in the same agency. Provided: That such reassignment shall not involve reduction in rank, status or salary. 25 In the instant case there was actually a reassignment of employee from one branch to the Office of the Clerk of Court in accordance with Administrative Order No. 6 of the Supreme Court and in consonance with PD 807. The language of attorney in his motion for reconsideration referring to the Supreme Court as a "Civilized, democratic tribunal," but by innuendo would suggest that it is not; in his motion to inhibit, categorizing the Court's decision as "false, erroneous and illegal" and accusing two justices for being interested in the decision of the case without any basis in fact; asking the other members of the Court to inhibit themselves for favors or benefits received from any of the petitioners including the President constitute disrespectful language to the Court. It undermines and degrades the administration of justice. The language is necessary for the defense of client is no justification. It ill behooves an attorney to justify his disrespectful language with the statement that it was necessary for the defense of his client. A client's cause does not permanent an attorney to cross the line between liberty and license. Lawyers must always keep in perspective the thought that "since lawyers are administrators of justice, oathbound servants of society, their first duty is not to their clients, as many suppose, but to the administration of justice; to this their client's success is wholly subordinate; and their conduct ought to and must be scrupulously observant of law and ethics. 26 Thru the use of uncalled language, respondent had committed insubordination, a ground for disciplinary action. 27 The evidence of record supports the findings of the investigating judge. It is a fact that the respondent was convicted of libel in Criminal Case No. Q-7171 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IV, at Quezon City. 7 While this fact alone is not sufficient to warrant disciplinary action, the respondent's conviction for libel shows his propensity to speak ill of others. His letter dated March 11, 1976 to Judge Minerva C. Genovea, then Executive Judge of the City Court of Quezon City 8 contains defamatory and uncalled for language.

6 The handwritten notes of the respondent regarding different cases pending in Branch VI of the City Court of Quezon City, presided by the complainant, Judge Remigio E. Zari, show that the respondent had exerted undue influence in the disposition of the cases mentioned therein. 9 It is true that conviction for libel does not automatically justify removal of a public officer. 10 However, the fact of conviction for libel of the respondent, taken together with the letter he wrote to then Executive City Judge of the City Court of Quezon City, Judge Minerva C. Genovea, shows the tendency of the respondent to malign people. Respondent's act of interfering in the cases pending before Branch VI of the City Court of Quezon City presided by the complainant is inimical to the service. This alone warrants severe disciplinary measures. In his affidavit subscribed and sworn to before then City Judge Oscar A. Inocentes on June 10, 1969, the respondent stated "That I am a person of good moral character and integrity and have no administrative, criminal or police record. " This averment is not true because the respondent had been convicted of libel in Criminal Case No. Q-7171, of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch IV, in a sentence dated April 28, 1967. This prevarication in a sworn statement is another ground for serious disciplinary action. The removal from the service of the respondent is warranted by the evidence adduced during the investigation conducted by Judge Sergio A. F. Apostol of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XVI, Quezon City. WHEREFORE, the respondent, Diosdado S. Flores, is hereby DISMISSED as Deputy Clerk of Court of Branch VI of the City Court of Quezon City, with forfeiture of all retirement privileges and with prejudice to reinstatement in the national and local governments, as well as, in any government instrumentality or agency including government owned or controlled corporations effective upon the finality of this decision. Let a copy of this decision be attached to his personal record. SO ORDERED.

7 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. PADILLA, J.: This is a petition for certiorari which seeks to annul, on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, the Order of the respondent Judge, dated 15 January 1985, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner Beatriz F. Gonzales as a co-administratrix in Special Proceedings No. 021 entitled "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Ramona Gonzales Vda. de Favis," Branch 143, RTC, Makati, Metro Manila; and the Order of 15 May 1985 denying reconsideration of the same. The facts are: 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 co-administratrix, 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. 1 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. The Court, in explaining its action, stated: . . . In appointing them, the court was of the opinion that it would be to the best interest of the estate if two administrators who are the children of the deceased would jointly administer the same. Unfortunately, as events have shown, the two administrators have not seen eye to eye with each other and most of the time they have been at loggerheads with each other to the prejudice of the estate. Beatriz F. Gonzales has been absent from the country since October, 1984 as she is in the United States as stated in the motion and opposition of Asterio Favis dated December 11, 1984, and she has not returned even up to this date so that Teresa F. Olbes has been left alone to administer the estate. Under these circumstances, and in order that the estate will be administered in an orderly and efficient manner, the court believes that there should be now only one administrator of the estate. 2 Petitioner moved to reconsider the Order of 15 January 1985. Her motion was opposed separately by private respondent Teresa Olbes and another co-heir Cecilia Gomez. In her manifestation and

8 opposition to petitioner's motion for reconsideration, Cecilia Gomez stated that it would be pointless to re-appoint Beatriz F. Gonzales as co-administratrix of Teresa Olbes, as the former would be leaving soon for the United States to attend to unfinished business. Moreover, she expressed satisfaction with the manner respondent Teresa Olbes had been managing and administering the estate. In his Order dated 7 May 1986, a part of which is hereunder quoted, respondent Judge denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. He said: xxx xxx xxx After a consideration of the motion for reconsideration and the oppositions thereto, the court believes and so holds that it should be denied. The court in its discretion has issued its order dated January 15, 1985 cancelling the appointment and the letters of administration issued to Beatriz F. Gonzales and it reiterates the same for the best interest of the estate of the deceased. It is noteworthy that of the four heirs of the deceased, one of them being the movant Beatriz F. Gonzales, two of them, namely, Cecilia F. Gomez and Teresa F. Olbes, opposed the motion. The other heir Asterio Favis, did not file or make any comment to the motion. As can be gathered from the oppositions of Cecilia F. Gomez and Teresa F. Olbes, the reappointment of Beatriz F. Gonzales as a co-administratrix would not be conducive to the efficient and orderly administration of the estate of the deceased Ramona Gonzales vda. de Favis. 3 Petitioner contends before this Court that respondent Judge's Order dated 15 January 1985 should be nullified on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, as her removal was not shown by respondents to be anchored on any of the grounds provided under Section 2, Rule 82, Rules of Court, which states: 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. . . . While appellate courts are generally disinclined to interfere with the action taken by the probate court in the matter of removal of an administrator, 4 we find, in the case at bar, sufficient cause to reverse the order of the probate court removing petitioner as co-administratrix of the estate. The rule is that if no executor is named in the will, or the named executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a person dies intestate, the court must appoint an administrator of the estate of the deceased 5 who shall act as representative not only of the court appointing him but also of the heirs and the creditors of the estate. 6 In the exercise of its discretion, the probate court may appoint one, two or more co-administrators to have the benefit of their judgment and perhaps at all times to have different interests represented. 7 In the appointment of the administrator of the estate of a deceased person, the principal consideration reckoned with is the interest in said estate of the one to be appointed as administrator. 8 This is the same consideration which Section 6 of Rule 78 takes into account in establishing the order of preference in the appointment of administrators for the estate. The underlying assumption behind this rule is that those who will reap the benefit of a wise, speedy, economical administration of the estate, or, on the other hand, suffer the consequences of waste, improvidence or mismanagement, have the highest interest and most influential motive to administer the estate correctly. 9 Administrators have such an interest in the execution of their trust as entitle them to protection from removal without just cause. 10 Hence, Section 2 of Rule 82 of the Rules of Court provides the legal and specific causes authorizing the court to remove an administrator. 11

9 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. In the present case, the court a quo did not base the removal of the petitioner as co-administratrix on any of the causes specified in respondent's motion for relief of the petitioner. Neither did it dwell on, nor determine the validity of the charges brought against petitioner by respondent Olbes. The court based the removal of the petitioner on the fact that in the administration of the estate, conflicts and misunderstandings have existed between petitioner and respondent Teresa Olbes which allegedly have prejudiced the estate, and the added circumstance that petitioner had been absent from the country since October 1984, and up to 15 January 1985, the date of the questioned order. Certainly, it is desirable that the administration of the deceased's estate be marked with harmonious relations between co-administrators. But for mere disagreements between such joint fiduciaries, without misconduct, one's removal is not favored. 12 Conflicts of opinion and judgment naturally, and, perhaps inevitably, occur between persons with different interests in the same estate. Such conflicts, if unresolved by the co-administrators, can be resolved by the probate court to the best interest of the estate and its heirs. We, like petitioner, find of material importance the fact that the court a quo failed to find hard facts showing that the conflict and disharmony between the two (2) co-administratrices were unjustly caused by petitioner, or that petitioner was guilty of incompetence in the fulfillment of her duties, or prevented the management of the estate according to the dictates of prudence, or any other act or omission showing that her continuance as co-administratrix of the estate materially endangers the interests of the estate. Petitioner Beatriz F. Gonzales is as interested as respondent Olbes and the other heirs in that the properties of the estate be duly administered and conserved for the benefit of the heirs; and there is as yet no ground to believe that she has prejudiced or is out to prejudice said estate to warrant the probate court into removing petitioner as co-administratrix. 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. In her motion for reconsideration of the Order dated 15 January 1985, petitioner explained to the court a quo that her absence from the country was due to the fact that she had to accompany her ailing husband to the United States for medical treatment. 13 It appears too that petitioner's absence from the country was known to respondent Olbes, and that the latter and petitioner Gonzales had continually maintained correspondence with each other with respect to the administration of the estate during the petitioner's absence from the country. 14 As a matter of fact, petitioner, while in the United States, sent respondent Olbes a letter addressed to the Land Bank of the Philippines dated 14 November 1984, and duly authenticated by the Philippine Consulate in San Francisco, authorizing her (Olbes) to receive, and collect the interests accruing from the Land Bank bonds belonging to the estate, and to use them for the payment of accounts necessary for the operation of the administration. 15 The above facts, we note, show that petitioner had never abandoned her role as co-administratrix of the estate nor had she been remiss in the fullfilment 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. . . . It seems quite clear that a 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

10 executor "has removed" from the estate, within the intent of the statute. The learned surrogate was evidently satisfied that the sojourn of these executors in New Jersey was nothing more than a departure from the state for the benefit of relatives, not designed to constitute a permanent change of abode, and contemplating a return to New York as soon as the purpose of their absence should be accomplished. In this view, I am inclined to think that he was right in refusing to hold that he was constrained to revoke the letters by the provisions of the Code to which I have referred. I therefore advise an affirmance of the order. 16 Finally, it seems that the court a quo seeks refuge in the fact that two (2) of the other three (3) heirs of the estate of the deceased (Teresa Olbes and Cecilia Favis Gomez) have opposed the retention or reappointment of petitioner as co-administratrix of the estate. 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 estate, nor on the belief of the court that it would result in orderly and efficient administration. In re William's Adm'r., the court held: A county court having appointed a stranger administrator as expressly authorized by Ky. St. 3897, after 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 cause. 17 As the appointment of petitioner Beatriz F. Gonzales was valid, and 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. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Order of the court a quo dated 15 January 1985 removing petitioner Beatriz F. Gonzales as co-administratrix in Special Proceedings No. 021, entitled "In the Matter of the Intestate Estate of Ramona Gonzales Vda. de Favis" and the Order of the same Court dated 15 May 1985 denying reconsideration of said Order, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is ordered reinstated as co-administratrix of said estate. SO ORDERED.

11 G.R. No. L-40502 November 29, 1976 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-42670 November 29, 1976 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.

MARTIN, J.: These two interrelated cases bring to Us the question of what the word "resides" in Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules Of Court, referring to the situs of the settlement of the estate of deceased persons, means. Additionally, the rule in the appointment of a special administrator is sought to be reviewed. On May 2, 1973, Virginia G. Fule filed with the Court of First Instance of Laguna, at Calamba, presided over by Judge Severo A. Malvar, a petition for letters of administration, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 27-C, alleging, inter alia, "that on April 26, 1973, Amado G. Garcia, a property owner of Calamba, Laguna, died intestate in the City of Manila, leaving real estate and personal properties in Calamba, Laguna, and in other places, within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court." At the same time, she moved ex parte for her appointment as special administratrix over the estate. On even date, May 2, 1973, Judge Malvar granted the motion. A motion for reconsideration was filed by Preciosa B. Garcia on May 8, 1973, contending that the order appointing Virginia G. Fule as special administratrix was issued without jurisdiction, since no notice of the petition for letters of administration has been served upon all persons interested in the estate; there has been no delay or cause for delay in the proceedings for the appointment of a regular administrator as the surviving spouse of Amado G. Garcia, she should be preferred in the appointment of a special administratrix; and, Virginia G. Fule is a debtor of the estate of Amado G. Garcia. Preciosa B. Garcia, therefore, prayed that she be appointed special administratrix of the estate, in lieu of Virginia G. Fule, and as regular administratrix after due hearing. While this reconsideration motion was pending resolution before the Court, Preciosa B. Garcia filed on May 29, 1973 a motion to remove Virginia G. Fule as special administratrix alleging, besides the jurisdictional ground raised in the motion for reconsideration of May 8, 1973 that her appointment was obtained through erroneous, misleading and/or incomplete misrepresentations; that Virginia G. Fule has adverse interest against the estate; and that she has shown herself unsuitable as administratrix and as officer of the court. In the meantime, the notice of hearing of the petition for letters of administration filed by Virginia G. Fule with the Court of First Instance of Calamba, Laguna, was published on May 17, 24, and 31, 1973, in the Bayanihan, a weekly publication of general circulation in Southern Luzon. On June 6, 1973, Preciosa B. Garcia received a "Supplemental Petition for the Appointment of Regular Administrator ' filed by Virginia G. Fule. This supplemental petition modified the original petition in four aspects: (1) the allegation that during the lifetime of the deceased Amado G. Garcia, he was elected as

12 Constitutional Delegate for the First District of Laguna and his last place of residence was at Calamba, Laguna; (2) the deletion of the names of Preciosa B. Garcia and Agustina Garcia as legal heirs of Amado G. Garcia; (3) the allegation that Carolina Carpio, who was simply listed as heir in the original petition, is the surviving spouse of Amado G. Garcia and that she has expressly renounced her preferential right to the administration of the estate in favor of Virginia G. Fule; and (4) that Virginia G. Fule be appointed as the regular administratrix. The admission of this supplemental petition was opposed by Preciosa B. Garcia for the reason, among others, that it attempts to confer jurisdiction on the Court of First Instance of Laguna, of which the court was not possessed at the beginning because the original petition was deficient. On July 19, 1973, Preciosa B. Garcia filed an opposition to the original and supplemental petitions for letters of administration, raising the issues of jurisdiction, venue, lack of interest of Virginia G. Fule in the estate of Amado G. Garcia, and disqualification of Virginia G Fule as special administratrix. An omnibus motion was filed by Virginia G. Fule on August 20, 1973, praying for authority to take possession of properties of the decedent allegedly in the hands of third persons as well as to secure cash advances from the Calamba Sugar Planters Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. Preciosa B. Garcia opposed the motion, calling attention to the limitation made by Judge Malvar on the power of the special administratrix, viz., "to making an inventory of the personal and real properties making up the state of the deceased." However, by July 2, 1973, Judge Malvar and already issued an order, received by Preciosa B. Garcia only on July 31, 1973, denying the motion of Preciosa B. Garcia to reconsider the order of May 2, 1973, appointing Virginia G. Fule as special administratrix, and admitting the supplementation petition of May 18,1973. On August 31, 1973, Preciosa B. Garcia moved to dismiss the petition, because (1) jurisdiction over the petition or over the parties in interest has not been acquired by the court; (2) venue was improperly laid; and (3) Virginia G. Fule is not a party in interest as she is not entitled to inherit from the deceased Amado G. Garcia. On September 28, 1973, Preciosa B. Garcia filed a supplemental motion to substitute Virginia G. Fule as special administratrix, reasoning that the said Virginia G. Fule admitted before before the court that she is a full-blooded sister of Pablo G. Alcalde, an illegitimate son of Andrea Alcalde, with whom the deceased Amado G. Garcia has no relation. Three motions were filed by Preciosa B. Garcia on November 14, 1973, one, to enjoin the special administratrix from taking possession of properties in the hands of third persons which have not been determined as belonging to Amado G. Garcia; another, to remove the special administratrix for acting outside her authority and against the interest of the estate; and still another, filed in behalf of the minor Agustina B. Garcia, to dismiss the petition for want of cause of action, jurisdiction, and improper venue. On November 28, 1973, Judge Malvar resolved the pending omnibus motion of Virgina G. Fule and the motion to dismiss filed by Preciosa B. Garcia. Resolving the motion to dismiss, Judge Malvar ruled that the powers of the special administratrix are those provided for in Section 2, Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, 1 subject only to the previous qualification made by the court that the administration of the properties subject of the marketing agreement with the Canlubang Sugar Planters Cooperative Marketing Association should remain with the latter; and that the special administratrix had already been authorized in a previous order of August 20, 1973 to take custody and possession of all papers and certificates of title and personal effects of the decedent with the Canlubang Sugar Planters Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. Ramon Mercado, of the Canlubang Sugar Planters Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc., was ordered to deliver to Preciosa B. Garcia all certificates of title in her name without any qualifying words like "married to Amado Garcia" does not appear. Regarding the motion to dismiss, Judge Malvar ruled that the issue of jurisdiction had already been resolved in the order of July 2, 1973, denying Preciosa B. Garcia's motion to reconsider the appointment of Virginia G. Fule and admitting the

13 supplemental petition, the failure of Virginia G. Fule to allege in her original petition for letters of administration in the place of residence of the decedent at the time of his death was cured. Judge Malvar further held that Preciosa B. Garcia had submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and had waived her objections thereto by praying to be appointed as special and regular administratrix of the estate. An omnibus motion was filed by Preciosa B. Garcia on December 27, 1973 to clarify or reconsider the foregoing order of Judge Malvar, in view of previous court order limiting the authority of the special administratrix to the making of an inventory. Preciosa B. Garcia also asked for the resolution of her motion to dismiss the petitions for lack of cause of action, and also that filed in behalf of Agustina B. Garcia. Resolution of her motions to substitute and remove the special administratrix was likewise prayed for. On December 19, 1973, Judge Malvar issued two separate orders, the first, denying Preciosa B. Garcia's motions to substitute and remove the special administratrix, and the second, holding that the power allowed the special administratrix enables her to conduct and submit an inventory of the assets of the estate. On January 7, 1974, Preciosa B. Garcia moved for reconsideration of the foregoing orders of November 28, 1973 and December 19, 1973, insofar as they sustained or failed to rule on the issues raised by her: (a) legal standing (cause of action) of Virginia G. Fule; (b) venue; (c) jurisdiction; (d) appointment, qualification and removal of special administratrix; and (e) delivery to the special administratrix of checks and papers and effects in the office of the Calamba Sugar Planters Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. On March 27, 1973, Judge Malvar issued the first questioned order denying Preciosa B. Garcia's motion for reconsideration of January 7, 1974. On July 19, 1974, Judge Malvar issued the other three questioned orders: one, directing Ramon Mercado, of the Calamba Sugar Planters Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc., to furnish Virginia G. Fule, as special administratrix, copy of the statement of accounts and final liquidation of sugar pool, as well as to deliver to her the corresponding amount due the estate; another, directing Preciosa B. Garcia to deliver to Virginia G. Fule two motor vehicles presumably belonging to the estate; and another, directing Ramon Mercado to deliver to the court all certificates of title in his possession in the name of Preciosa B. Garcia, whether qualified with the word "single" or "married to Amado Garcia." During the hearing of the various incidents of this case (Sp. Proc. 27-C) before Judge Malvar, 2 Virginia G. Fule presented the death certificate of Amado G. Garcia showing that his residence at the time of his death was Quezon City. On her part, Preciosa B. Garcia presented the residence certificate of the decedent for 1973 showing that three months before his death his residence was in Quezon City. Virginia G. Fule also testified that Amado G. Garcia was residing in Calamba, Laguna at the time of his death, and that he was a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention for the first district of Laguna. On July 26, 1974, Preciosa B. Garcia and Agustina B. Garcia commenced a special action for certiorari and/or prohibition and preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 03221-SP. primarily to annul the proceedings before Judge Malvar in Sp. Proc. No. 27-C of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, or, in the alternative, to vacate the questioned four orders of that court, viz., one dated March 27, 1974, denying their motion for reconsideration of the order denying their motion to dismiss the criminal and supplemental petitions on the issue, among others, of jurisdiction, and the three others, all dated July 19, 1974, directing the delivery of certain properties to the special administratrix, Virginia G. Fule, and to the court. On January 30, 1975, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment annulling the proceedings before Judge Severo A. Malvar in Sp. Proc. 27-C of the Court of First Instance of Calamba, Laguna, for lack of jurisdiction.

14 Denied of their motion for reconsideration on March 31, 1975, Virginia G. Fule forthwith elevated the matter to Us on appeal by certiorari. The case was docketed as G.R. No. L-40502. However, even before Virginia G. Fule could receive the decision of the Court of Appeals, Preciosa B. Garcia had already filed on February 1, 1975 a petition for letters of administration before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. Q-19738, over the same intestate estate of Amado G. Garcia. On February 10, 1975, Preciosa B. Garcia urgently moved for her appointment as special administratrix of the estate. Judge Vicente G. Ericta granted the motion and appointed Preciosa B. Garcia as special administratrix upon a bond of P30,000.00. Preciosa B. Garcia qualified and assumed the office. For the first time, on February 14, 1975, Preciosa B. Garcia informed Judge Ericta of the pendency of Sp. Proc. No. 27-C before Judge Malvar of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, and the annulment of the proceedings therein by the Court of Appeals on January 30, 1975. She manifested, however, her willingness to withdraw Sp. Proc. Q-19738 should the decision of the Court of Appeals annulling the proceedings before the Court of First Instance of Laguna in Sp. Proc. No. 27-C have not yet become final, it being the subject of a motion for reconsideration. On March 10, 1973, Judge Ericta ordered the suspension of the proceedings before his court until Preciosa B. Garcia inform the court of the final outcome of the case pending before the Court of Appeals. This notwithstanding, Preciosa B. Garcia filed on December 11, 1975, an "Urgent Petition for Authority to Pay Estate Obligations." On December 13, 1975, Virginia G. Fule filed a "Special Appearance to Question Venue and Jurisdiction" reiterating the grounds stated in the previous special appearance of March 3, 1975, and calling attention that the decision of the Court of Appeals and its resolution denying the motion for reconsideration had been appealed to this Court; that the parties had already filed their respective briefs; and that the case is still pending before the Court. On December 17, 1975, Judge Ernani Cruz Pano, who succeeded Judge Ericta, issued an order granting Preciosa B. Garcia's "Urgent Petition for Authority to Pay Estate Obligations" in that the payments were for the benefit of the estate and that there hangs a cloud of doubt on the validity of the proceedings in Sp. Proc. No. 27-C of the Court of First Instance of Laguna. A compliance of this Order was filed by Preciosa B. Garcia on January 12,1976. On February 4,1974, VIRGINIA G. FULE instituted G.R. No. L-42670, a petition for certiorari with temporary restraining order, to annul the proceedings in Sp. Proc. No. Q-19738 and to restrain Judge Ernani Cruz Pao from further acting in the case. A restraining order was issued on February 9, 1976. We dismiss the appeal in G.R. No. L-40502 and the petition for certiorari in G.R. No. L-42670 for the reasons and considerations hereinafter stated. 1. Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: "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, in the Court of First Instance in the province in which he resides at the time of his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign country, the Court of First Instance of any province in which he had estate. The court first 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 proceeding, except in an appeal from that court, in the original case, or when the want of jurisdiction appears on the record." With particular regard to letters of administration, Section 2, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court demands that the petition therefor should affirmatively show the existence of jurisdiction to make the appointment sought, and should allege all the necessary

15 facts, such as death, the name and last residence of the decedent, the existence, and situs if need be, of assets, intestacy, where this is relied upon, and the right of the person who seeks administration, as next of kin, creditor, or otherwise, to be appointed. The fact of death of the intestate and his last residence within the country are foundation facts upon which all subsequent proceedings in the administration of the estate rest, and that if the intestate was not an inhabitant of the state at the time of his death, and left no assets in the state, no jurisdiction is conferred on the court to grant letters of administration. 3 The aforequoted Section 1, Rule 73 (formerly Rule 75, Section 1), specifically the clause "so far as it depends on the place of residence of the decedent, or of the location of the estate," is in reality a matter of venue, as the caption of the Rule indicates: "Settlement of Estate of Deceased Persons.Venue and Processes. 4 It could not have been intended to define the jurisdiction over the subject matter, because such legal provision is contained in a law of procedure dealing merely with procedural matters. Procedure is one thing; jurisdiction over the subject matter is another. The power or authority of the court over the subject matter "existed and was fixed before procedure in a given cause began." That power or authority is not altered or changed by procedure, which simply directs the manner in which the power or authority shall be fully and justly exercised. There are cases though that if the power is not exercised conformably with the provisions of the procedural law, purely, the court attempting to exercise it loses the power to exercise it legally. However, this does not amount to a loss of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Rather, it means that the court may thereby lose jurisdiction over the person or that the judgment may thereby be rendered defective for lack of something essential to sustain it. The appearance of this provision in the procedural law at once raises a strong presumption that it has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter. In plain words, it is just a matter of method, of convenience to the parties. 5 The Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, confers upon Courts of First Instance jurisdiction over all probate cases independently of the place of residence of the deceased. Because of the existence of numerous Courts of First Instance in the country, the Rules of Court, however, purposedly fixes the venue or the place where each case shall be brought. A fortiori, the place of residence of the deceased in settlement of estates, probate of will, and issuance of letters of administration does not constitute an element of jurisdiction over the subject matter. It is merely constitutive of venue. And it is upon this reason that the Revised Rules of Court properly considers the province where the estate of a deceased person shall be settled as "venue." 6 2. But, the far-ranging question is this: What does the term "resides" mean? Does it refer to the actual residence or domicile of the decedent at the time of his death? We lay down the doctrinal rule that the term "resides" connotes ex vi termini "actual residence" as distinguished from "legal residence or domicile." This term "resides," like, the terms "residing" and "residence," is elastic and should be interpreted in the light of the object or purpose of the statute or rule in which it is employed. 7 In the application of venue statutes and rules Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court is of such nature residence rather than domicile is the significant factor. Even where the statute uses the word "domicile" still it is construed as meaning residence and not domicile in the technical sense. Some cases make a distinction between the terms "residence" and "domicile" but as generally used in statutes fixing venue, the terms are synonymous, and convey the same meaning as the term "inhabitant." 8 In other words, "resides" should be viewed or understood in its popular sense, meaning, the personal, actual or physical habitation of a person, actual residence or place of abode. It signifies physical presence in a place and actual stay thereat. In this popular sense, the term means merely residence, that is, personal residence, not legal residence or domicile. 9Residence simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile. 10 No particular length of time of residence is required though; however, the residence must be more than temporary. 11 3. Divergent claims are maintained by Virginia G. Fule and Preciosa B. Garcia on the residence of the deceased Amado G. Garcia at the time of his death. In her original petition for letters of administration before the Court of First Instance of Calamba, Laguna, Virginia G. Fule measely stated "(t)hat on April

16 26,1973, Amado G. Garcia, a property owner of Calamba, Laguna, died intestate in the City of Manila, leaving real estate and personal properties in Calamba, Laguna, and in other places within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court." Preciosa B. Garcia assailed the petition for failure to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement and improper laying of venue. For her, the quoted statement avers no domicile or residence of the deceased Amado G. Garcia. To say that as "property owner of Calamba, Laguna," he also resides in Calamba, Laguna, is, according to her, non sequitur. On the contrary, Preciosa B. Garcia claims that, as appearing in his death certificate presented by Virginia G. Fule herself before the Calamba court and in other papers, the last residence of Amado G. Garcia was at 11 Carmel Avenue, Carmel Subdivision, Quezon City. Parenthetically, in her amended petition, Virginia G. Fule categorically alleged that Amado G. Garcia's "last place of residence was at Calamba, Laguna." On this issue, We rule that the last place of residence of the deceased Amado G. Garcia was at 11 Carmel Avenue, Carmel Subdivision, Quezon City, and not at Calamba, Laguna. A death certificate is admissible to prove the residence of the decedent at the time of his death. 12 As it is, the death certificate of Amado G. Garcia, which was presented in evidence by Virginia G. Fule herself and also by Preciosa B. Garcia, shows that his last place of residence was at 11 Carmel Avenue, Carmel Subdivision, Quezon City. Aside from this, the deceased's residence certificate for 1973 obtained three months before his death; the Marketing Agreement and Power of Attorney dated November 12, 1971 turning over the administration of his two parcels of sugar land to the Calamba Sugar Planters Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc.; the Deed of Donation dated January 8, 1973, transferring part of his interest in certain parcels of land in Calamba, Laguna to Agustina B. Garcia; and certificates of titles covering parcels of land in Calamba, Laguna, show in bold documents that Amado G. Garcia's last place of residence was at Quezon City. Withal, the conclusion becomes imperative that the venue for Virginia C. Fule's petition for letters of administration was improperly laid in the Court of First Instance of Calamba, Laguna. Nevertheless, the long-settled rule is that objection to improper venue is subject to waiver. Section 4, Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court states: "When improper venue is not objected to in a motion to dismiss, it is deemed waived." In the case before Us the Court of Appeals had reason to hold that in asking to substitute Virginia G. Fule as special administratrix, Preciosa B. Garcia did not necessarily waive her objection to the jurisdiction or venue assumed by the Court of First Instance of Calamba, Laguna, but availed of a mere practical resort to alternative remedy to assert her rights as surviving spouse, while insisting on the enforcement of the Rule fixing the proper venue of the proceedings at the last residence of the decedent. 4. Preciosa B. Garcia's challenge to Virginia G. Fule's appointment as special administratrix is another issue of perplexity. Preciosa B. Garcia claims preference to the appointment as surviving spouse. Section 1 of Rule 80 provides that "(w)hen there is delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration by any cause including an appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a will, the court may appoint a special administrator to take possession and charge of the estate of the deceased until the questions causing the delay are decided and executors or administrators appointed. 13 Formerly, the appointment of a special administrator was only proper when the allowance or disallowance of a will is under appeal. The new Rules, however, broadened the basis for appointment and such appointment is now allowed when there is delay in granting letters testamentary or administration by any cause e.g., parties cannot agree among themselves. 14 Nevertheless, the discretion to appoint a special administrator or not lies in the probate court. 15 That, however, is no authority for the judge to become partial, or to make his personal likes and dislikes prevail over, or his passions to rule, his judgment. Exercise of that discretion must be based on reason, equity, justice and legal principle. There is no reason why the same fundamental and legal principles governing the choice of a regular administrator should not be taken into account in the appointment of a special administrator. 16 Nothing is wrong for the judge to consider the order of preference in the appointment of a regular administrator in appointing a special administrator. After all, the consideration that overrides all others in this respect is the beneficial interest of the appointee in the estate of the decedent. 17 Under the law, 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. The good or bad administration of a property may affect rather the fruits than the naked ownership of a property. 18

17 Virginia G. Fule, however, disputes the status of Preciosa B. Garcia as the widow of the late Amado G. Garcia. With equal force, Preciosa B. Garcia maintains that Virginia G. Fule has no relation whatsoever with Amado G. Garcia, or that, she is a mere illegitimate sister of the latter, incapable of any successional rights. 19 On this point, We rule that Preciosa B. Garcia is prima facie entitled to the appointment of special administratrix. It needs be emphasized that in the issuance of such appointment, which is but temporary and subsists only until a regular administrator is appointed, 20 the appointing court does not determine who are entitled to share in the estate of the decedent but who is entitled to the administration. The issue of heirship is one to be determined in the decree of distribution, and the findings of the court on the relationship of the parties in the administration as to be the basis of distribution. 21 The preference of Preciosa B. Garcia is with sufficient reason. In a Donation Inter Vivos executed by the deceased Amado G. Garcia on January 8, 1973 in favor of Agustina B. Garcia, he indicated therein that he is married to Preciosa B. Garcia. 22 In his certificate of candidacy for the office of Delegate to the Constitutional Convention for the First District of Laguna filed on September 1, 1970, he wrote therein the name of Preciosa B. Banaticla as his spouse. 23 Faced with these documents and the presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage, Preciosa B. Garcia can be reasonably believed to be the surviving spouse of the late Amado G. Garcia. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. 24 5. Under these circumstances and the doctrine laid down in Cuenco vs. Court of Appeals, 25 this Court under its supervisory authority over all inferior courts may properly decree that venue in the instant case was properly assumed by and transferred to Quezon City and that it is in the interest of justice and avoidance of needless delay that the Quezon City court's exercise of jurisdiction over the settlement of the estate of the deceased Amado G. Garcia and the appointment of special administratrix over the latter's estate be approved and authorized and the Court of First Instance of Laguna be disauthorized from continuing with the case and instead be required to transfer all the records thereof to the Court of First Instance of Quezon City for the continuation of the proceedings. 6. Accordingly, the Order of Judge Ernani Cruz Pano of December 17, 1975, granting the "Urgent Petition for Authority to Pay Estate Obligations" filed by Preciosa B. Garcia in Sp. Proc. No. Q-19738, subject matter of G.R. No. L-42670, and ordering the Canlubang Sugar Estate to deliver to her as special administratrix the sum of P48,874.70 for payment of the sum of estate obligations is hereby upheld. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petitions of petitioner Virginia Garcia Fule in G.R. No. L-40502 and in G.R. No. L42670 are hereby denied, with costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED.