THE ESTATE OF HILARIO M. RUIZ, EDMOND RUIZ, Executor, vs.
THE COURT OF the Blue Ridge apartments, in accordance with the provisions of the holographic will.
APPEALS (Former Special Sixth Division), MARIA PILAR RUIZ-MONTES, MARIA
CATHRYN RUIZ, CANDICE ALBERTINE RUIZ, MARIA ANGELINE RUIZ and THE
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG, BRANCH 156
FACTS:
- On April 12, 1988, Hilario Ruiz died, leaving a will. Immediately thereafter, the cash
component of his estate was distributed among Edmond Ruiz and the heirs in
accordance with the will. However Edmond, the named executor, did not take any
action for the probate of his fathers holographic will.
- Four years after the testators death, it was Maria Pilar Ruiz Montes who filed before
the RTC of Pasig, a petition for the probate and approval of the will and for the
issuance of letters testamentary to Edmond Ruiz. Surprisingly, Edmond opposed the
petition on the ground that the will was executed under undue influence.
- On November 2, 1992, one of the properties of the estate - the house and lot at No.
Valle Verde IV, Pasig was leased out by Edmond Ruiz to third persons.
- On January 19, 1993, the probate court ordered Edmond to deposit with the Branch
Clerk of Court the rental deposit and payments totalling P540,000.00 representing the
one-year lease of the Valle Verde property. However, Edmond only turned over the
amount of P348,583.56, representing the balance of the rent after deducting
P191,416.14 for repair and maintenance expenses on the estate.
- In March 1993, Edmond moved for the release of P50,000.00 to pay the real estate
taxes on the real properties of the estate. The probate court approved the release of
P7,722.006
- On May 14, 1993, Edmond withdrew his opposition to the probate of the will.
Consequently, the probate court admitted the will to probate and ordered the issuance
of letters testamentary to Edmond conditioned upon the filing of a bond in the amount
of P50,000.00. The letters testamentary were issued on June 23, 1993.
- On July 28, 1993, petitioner Testate Estate of Hilario Ruiz as executor, filed an Ex-
Parte Motion for Release of Funds. It prayed for the release of the rent payments
deposited with the Branch Clerk of Court. Montes opposed the motion and
concurrently filed a Motion for Release of Funds to Certain Heirs and Motion for
Issuance of Certificate of Allowance of Probate Will. Montes prayed for the release of
the said rent payments to Maria Cathryn, Candice Albertine and Maria Angeline and
for the distribution of the testators properties, specifically the Valle Verde property and
- On August 26, 1993, the probate court denied petitioners motion for release of funds
but granted Montes’ motion in view of petitioner’s lack of opposition. It thus ordered
the release of the rent payments to the decedents three granddaughters. It further
ordered the delivery of the titleds to and possession of the properties bequeathed to
the three granddaughters and respondent Montes upon the filing of a bond of
P50,000.00.
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration alleging that he actually filed his opposition to
respondent Montes motion for release of rent payments which opposition the court
failed to consider. Petitioner likewise reiterated his previous motion for release of
funds.
- On November 23, 1993, petitioner, through counsel, manifested that he was
withdrawing his motion for release of funds in view of the fact that the lease
contract over Valle Verde property had been renewed for another year.
- Despite petitioners manifestation, the probate court, on December 22, 1993, ordered
the release of the funds to Edmond but only such amount as may be necessary to
cover the exspenses of administration and allowance as for support of the testators
three granddaughters subject to collation and deductible from their share in the
inheritance. The court, however, held in abeyance the release of the titles to
respondent Montes and the three granddaughters until the lapse of six months from
the date of first publication of the notice to creditors.
ISSUE:
- W/N the probate court, after admitting the will to probate but before payment of the
estates debts and obligations, has the authority to grant possession of all properties
of the estate to the executor of the will. YES
RATIO:
- Petitioner cannot correctly claim that the assailed order deprived him of his right to
take possession of all the real and personal properties of the estate. The right of an
executor or administrator to the possession and management of the real and personal
properties of the deceased is not absolute and can only be exercised so long as it is
necessary for the payment of the debts and expenses of administration, Section 3 of
Rule 84 of the Revised Rules of Court explicitly provides:
Sec. 3. Executor or administrator to retain whole estate to pay debts, and to administer
 estate not willed. - An executor or administrator shall have the right to the possession
and management of the real as well as the personal estate of the deceased so long
as it is necessary for the payment of the debts and expenses for administration.

- When petitioner moved for further release of the funds deposited with the clerk of
court, he had been previously granted by the probate court certain amounts for repair
and maintenance expenses on the properties of the estate, and payment of the real
estate taxes thereon. But petitioner moved again for the release of additional funds
for the same reasons he previously cited. It was correct for the probate court to require
him to submit an accounting of the necessary expenses for administration before
releasing any further money in his favor.

- It was relevantly noted by the probate court that petitioner had deposited with it only
a portion of the one-year rental income from the Valle Verde property. Petitioner did
not deposit its succeeding rents after renewal of the lease. Neither did he render an
accounting of such funds.

- Petitioner must be reminded that his right of ownership over the properties of his father
is merely inchoate as long as the estate has not been fully settled and partitioned. As
executor, he is a mere trustee of his fathers estate. The funds of the estate in his
hands are trust funds and he is held to the duties and responsibilities of a trustee of
the highest order. He cannot unilaterally assign to himself and possess all his parents
properties and the fruits thereof without first submitting an inventory and appraisal of
all real and personal properties of the deceased, rendering a true account of his
administration, the expenses of administration, the amount of the obligations and
estate tax, all of which are subject to a determination by the court as to their veracity,
propriety and justness.