DE GUZMAN V.

ANGELES
Short summary: This is a dispute between the surviving spouse (appointed
special administratrix) and the father in law as to the properties allegedly
belonging to the estate of the deceased but was being claimed by, and was in
the possession of, the father in law. Father in law now assails the appointment
of daughter in law as special administratrix, as well as the order for writ of
possession, even before notice was given to him. Court held that NOTICE is
needed, even for the appointment of a special administrator, as it is a position
of trust and confidence which needs notice (to inform interested parties) and
hearing where the petitioner who seeks to be appointed proves his
qualifications, and the oppositors contests it.

Facts:
-Manolito de Guzman died intestate.
-Elaine de Guzman (surviving spouse) filed petition for settlement of intestate
estate of the decedent before RTC Makati, alleging the following:
Manolito died in Makati, as a resident of Makati
Left properties which were acquired after the marriage of Manolito and Elaine
(thus Conjugal property)
Possible creditors
Copulsory heirs: Elaine (SS), 2 minor Children
Manolito died intestate (w/o a will)
Elaine most qualified to be the administrator

+ filed motion for writ of possession over 5 of Manolito's vehicles (who were in
the possession of Manolito's father - Pedro de Guzman - the petitioner):
granted!

-Petitioner made appearance, sought for extension to file opposition to the

Motion for writ of possession

-Elaine filed EX-Parte Motion to be Appoint as the Special Administatrix.

Motion set for hearing, all parties directed to be notified (BUT NO NOTICE
GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER!!!)
- RTC granted:
* made Elaine the special administratrix
* Granted motion for assistance of some military men and/or policemen to
assist Elaine in preserving the estate of Manolito
-Elaine tried to enforce order. Pedro de Guzman (petitioner) resisted, resulting
in a "near shoot-out between members of the Makati Police and CAPCOM
soldiers which was diffused by the arrival of Mayor Binay and the agreement
that the bulldozer sought to be taken be placed in Mayor Binay's custody while
the parties sought for clarification
-CLARIFICATION: the order only covers properties of the estate, not those
claimed by 3P
-Pedro then filed motion, giving list of properties he claimed he owns; also filed
this petition to annul the orders given

WON a probate court may appoint a special administratrix and issue a writ
of possession of alleged properties of a decedent for the preservation of
the estate in a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of the
said deceased person even before the probate court causes notice to be
served upon all interested parties pursuant to section 3, Rule 79 of the
Revised Rules of Court?

DISTINGUISH BETWEEN JURISDICTION OF THE PROBATE COURT OVER

THE PROCEEDINGS vs. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSONS WHO ARE
INTERESTED IN THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE

The probate court, in accordance w/ R79.3, must first cause notice

through publication of petition!
-purpose: bring all interested persons w/n the court's jurisdiction so that the
judgment therein becomes binding on all the world
-if no notice:
proceeding for settlement of estate is void and should be annulled. OR else,
may deprive a person of his property w/o due process of law
The court orders affecting other persons subsequent to the petition filed are
void and subject to annulment
-here: no notice before the court:
acted on the motion of Elaine to be the Special Administratrix
Issued a writ of possession of alleged properties of the deceased person
Granted the motion for assistance to preserve the estate of Manolito
-if notice was given, then the creditors and other interested persons could have
participated in the proceedings, especially because Elaine immediately filed a
motion to have herself appointed as administratrix; Pedro appears to be the
biggest creditor of the estate who has the largest interest in it
Special administrator: representative of decedent appointed by the probate
court to care for and preserve his estate until an executor or general
administrator is appointed.

WON the orders could have been issued w/o notice: ONLY if there's
urgency
-Here: no necessity/urgency for the issuance of the said orders w/o first giving
notice to interested persons; no avoidable delay
-emergency situations threatening the dissipation of the assets of an estate
justify a court's immediately taking some kind of temporary action even
without the required notice

So GR: give notice

X: emergency situations

Why give notice even for appointment of special administrator:

"The position of special administrator, by the very nature of the powers granted
thereby, is one of trust and confidence. It is a fiduciary position and,
therefore, requires a comprehensive determination of the suitability of the
applicant to such position. Hence, under Philippine jurisprudence, it has been
settled that the same fundamental and legal principles governing the choice of
a regular administrator should be taken in choosing the special administrator
(Francisco, Vol. VB, page 46 citing the cases of Ozaeta v. Pecson, Ibid. and
Roxas v. Pecson, Ibid.)

"In order to fully and correctly ascertain the suitability of the applicant to the
trust, a hearing is obviously necessary wherein the applicant can prove his
qualifications and at the same time affording oppositors, given notice of such
hearing and application, the opportunity to oppose or contest such application.

ON inhibition of judge: Judge voluntarily inhibited himself so moot