DE GUZMAN V.

ANGELES

Short summary: This is a dispute between the surviving spouse (appointed special adminsitratrix) 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