Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

SAN DIEGO v NOMBRE (Yap) (5) However, on appeal, the CA ruled:

11 SCRA 165, May 29, 1964


Petitioner/s: MOISES SAN DIEGO, SR. No such limitation on the power of a judicial administrator to grant
Respondent/s: ADELO NOMBRE and PEDRO ESCANLAR lease of property placed under his custody is provided for in the
present law. Under Art. 1647, it is only when the lease is to be
Doctrine: The provisions on agency should not apply to a judicial recorded in the Registry of Property that it cannot be instituted
administrator. A judicial administrator is appointed by the court. He is not only without special authority. Thus, regardless of the period of lease,
the representative of said Court, but also the heirs and creditors of the there is no need for special authority unless the contract is to be
estate. Before entering into his duties, he is required to file a bond. These recorded in the Registry.
circumstances are not required in agency. The agent is only answerable to
his principal. The protection which law gives the principal in limiting the Rule 85, Sec. 3 of the ROC authorizes a judicial administrator to
powers and rights of an agent stems from the fact that control by the principal administer the estate of the deceased not disposed by will, for
can only be through agreements. Whereas, the acts of a judicial purposes of liquidation and distribution. He may, therefore, exercise
administrator are subject to specific provisions of law and orders of the all acts of administration without special authority of the Court; such
appointing court. as the leasing the property. And where the lease has been formally
entered into, the court cannot, in the same proceeding, annul the
Facts: same. The proper remedy would be a separate action by the
(1) Respondent Adelo Nombre was the duly constituted judicial administrator or the heirs to annul the lease.
administrator. As such, he leased one of the properties of the
estate—a fishpond—to Pedro Escanlar, the other respondent. The (6) On appeal to the SC, petitioner contends that Art. 1878(8) limits the
terms of the lease was for 3 years, with a yearly rental of P3,000. right of a judicial administrator to lease the real property without prior
The transaction was done without previous authority or approval of court authority and approval, if it exceeds 1 year. The lease in favor
the Court. of Escalanlar, being 3 years and without court approval, is therefore
void.
(2) A year after, Nombre was removed as administrator, and was
replaced by one Sofronio Campillanos. Escalanlar was cited for Issue: W/N the provisions on Agency should apply in this case. (NO)
contempt for allegedly refusing to surrender the fishpond to the newly
appointed administrator. Held:

(3) Subsequently, Campillanos filed a motion for authority to execute a The provisions on agency should not apply to a judicial administrator. A
lease contract over the fishpond, in favor of petitioner Moises San judicial administrator is appointed by the court. He is not only the
Diego, for 5 years with yearly rental of P5,000. Escalanlar was not representative of said Court, but also the heirs and creditors of the estate.
notified of the said motion. Nombre, on the other hand, opposed to Before entering into his duties, he is required to file a bond. These
the motion, pointing out that the fishpond was leased by him to circumstances are not required in agency. The agent is only answerable to
Escalandar for 3 years. He alleged that the validity of the lease his principal. The protection which law gives the principal in limiting the
contract entered into by a judicial administrator must be recognized powers and rights of an agent stems from the fact that control by the principal
unless declared void in a separate action. can only be through agreements. Whereas, the acts of a judicial
administrator are subject to specific provisions of law and orders of the
(4) The lower court declared the contract in favor of Escanlar null and appointing court.
void for want of judicial authority and that San Diego offered better
lease conditions than Escanlar. In light of this, Escanlar agreed to Fallo: The decision of the CA was affirmed.
increase the rental to P5,000 after the termination of his original
contract. However, the trial judge stated that such contract was
fraudulent and executed in bad faith because Nombre was removed
as administrator and the rentals of the property was inadequate.