SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS Page 1 of 20

XII. Acceptance and repudiation of the inheritance; executors and Article 1046.  Public official establishments can neither accept nor
administrators repudiate an inheritance without the approval of the government. (994)

Civil Code, articles 1041-1060


Article 1047.  A married woman of age may repudiate an inheritance
without the consent of her husband. (995a)

SECTION 3

Acceptance and Repudiation of the Inheritance
Article 1048.  Deaf-mutes who can read and write may accept or
repudiate the inheritance personally or through an agent. Should they
Article 1041.  The acceptance or repudiation of the inheritance is an not be able to read and write, the inheritance shall be accepted by
act which is purely voluntary and free. (988)
their guardians. These guardians may repudiate the same with judicial
approval. (996a)

Article 1042. The effects of the acceptance or repudiation shall always

retroact to the moment of the death of the decedent. (989)
Article 1049. Acceptance may be express or tacit.

Article 1043. No person may accept or repudiate an inheritance unless An express acceptance must be made in a public or private document.

he is certain of the death of the person from whom he is to inherit, and

of his right to the inheritance. (991)
A tacit acceptance is one resulting from acts by which the intention to
accept is necessarily implied, or which one would have no right to do
Article 1044. Any person having the free disposal of his property may except in the capacity of an heir.

accept or repudiate an inheritance.

Acts of mere preservation or provisional administration do not imply an

Any inheritance left to minors or incapacitated persons may be acceptance of the inheritance if, through such acts, the title or capacity
accepted by their parents or guardians. Parents or guardians may of an heir has not been assumed. (999a)

repudiate the inheritance left to their wards only by judicial

authorization.
Article 1050. An inheritance is deemed accepted:

The right to accept an inheritance left to the poor shall belong to the (1) If the heirs sells, donates, or assigns his right to a stranger, or to his
persons designated by the testator to determine the beneficiaries and co-heirs, or to any of them;

distribute the property, or in their default, to those mentioned in article

1030. (992a)
(2) If the heir renounces the same, even though gratuitously, for the
benefit of one or more of his co-heirs;

Article 1045. The lawful representatives of corporations, associations,

institutions and entities qualified to acquire property may accept any (3) If he renounces it for a price in favor of all his co-heirs
inheritance left to the latter, but in order to repudiate it, the approval of indiscriminately; but if this renunciation should be gratuitous, and the
the court shall be necessary. (993a)
co-heirs in whose favor it is made are those upon whom the portion
SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS Page 2 of 20
renounced should devolve by virtue of accretion, the inheritance shall Article 1056.  The acceptance or repudiation of an inheritance, once
not be deemed as accepted. (1000)
made, is irrevocable, and cannot be impugned, except when it was
made through any of the causes that vitiate consent, or when an
Article 1051.  The repudiation of an inheritance shall be made in a unknown will appears. (997)

public or authentic instrument, or by petition presented to the court

having jurisdiction over the testamentary or intestate proceedings. Article 1057. Within thirty days after the court has issued an order for
(1008)
the distribution of the estate in accordance with the Rules of Court, the
heirs, devisees and legatees shall signify to the court having
Article 1052.  If the heir repudiates the inheritance to the prejudice of jurisdiction whether they accept or repudiate the inheritance.

his own creditors, the latter may petition the court to authorize them to
accept it in the name of the heir.
If they do not do so within that time, they are deemed to have
accepted the inheritance. (n)

The acceptance shall benefit the creditors only to an extent sufficient

to cover the amount of their credits. The excess, should there be any,
shall in no case pertain to the renouncer, but shall be adjudicated to SECTION 4

the persons to whom, in accordance with the rules established in this Executors and Administrators

Code, it may belong. (1001)

Article 1058.  All matters relating to the appointment, powers and

Article 1053.  If the heir should die without having accepted or duties of executors and administrators and concerning the
repudiated the inheritance his right shall be transmitted to his heirs. administration of estates of deceased persons shall be governed by
(1006)
the Rules of Court. (n)

Article 1054.  Should there be several heirs called to the inheritance, Article 1059.  If the assets of the estate of a decedent which can be
some of them may accept and the others may repudiate it. (1007a)
applied to the payment of debts are not sufficient for that purpose, the
provisions of articles 2239 to 2251 on Preference of Credits shall be
Article 1055. If a person, who is called to the same inheritance as an observed, provided that the expenses referred to in article 2244, No. 8,
heir by will and ab intestato, repudiates the inheritance in his capacity shall be those involved in the administration of the decedent's estate.
as a testamentary heir, he is understood to have repudiated it in both (n)

capacities.

Article 1060.  A corporation or association authorized to conduct the

Should he repudiate it as an intestate heir, without knowledge of his business of a trust company in the Philippines may be appointed as an
being a testamentary heir, he may still accept it in the latter capacity. executor, administrator, guardian of an estate, or trustee, in like manner
(1009)
as an individual; but it shall not be appointed guardian of the person of
a ward. (n)

SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS Page 3 of 20

Read:
 Felisa produced Exhibit no. 2, a document which was signed and
1. Ignacio v. Martinez, 33 Phil 576 
 ratified before a notary public on December 22, 1908. It shows
2. Guy v. CA, 502 SCRA 151 
 Crispulo’s express statement: “I renounce totally the share that may
3. Sison v. Azarraga, 30 Phil 129 
 belong to me, after the partition of the said property, and I assign the
4. Mercado v. Vda. De Jaen, 64 Phil 75 
 said share to the aforementioned married couple Luciano Lopez and
5. Liwanag v. CA, 14 SCRA 922 
 Felisa Martinez, or to their lawful heirs.” 

6. Pacific Commercial Co. v. Sotto, 34 Phil 237 


7. Anderson v. Perkins, 1 SCRA 387 
 PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: Dolores claimed that Exhibit No. 2 was
8. Torres v. Javier, 34 Phil 382
 signed and ratified by Crispulo Martinez without consideration at a
9. Esler v. Tad-Y, 46 Phil 854
 time when he was living with his sister, Felisa Martinez, separate from
10. Johannes v. Harvey, 43 Phil 175 
 Dolores and Arsenio on account of bad feeling then existing between
11. Moran Sison v. Teodoro, 100 Phil 1055 
 Dolores and Crispulo. Sometime before he died, Crispulo returned
12. Joson v. Joson, 2 SCRA 82 
 home and requested Dolores, in the presence of Felisa, to send for a
13. Chua v. Absolute Management Corp., 413 SCRA 547 
 person to make his will and expressed his wish to annul Exhibit No. 2,
14. Salonga Hernandez v. Pascual, 488 SCRA 449
however, this was countered by Felisa, the latter informing Crispulo
that she already destroyed Exhibit No. 2 so there was no need for
Case #1: DOLORES A IGNACIO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELISA Crispulo to make a will. Moreover, Dolores claimed that even admitting
MARTINEZ and JUAN MARTINEZ, defendants-appellants.  [G.R. all else, Exhibit No. 2, does not have the legal effect of vesting title
No. 10722. February 18, 1916.]
to Felisa and her deceased husband because, "in view of the terms of
this document, it has the legal force of a repudiation of inheritance.

FACTS: Deceased Crispulo Martinez died on September 8 1911.

Crispulo is the husband of petitioner Dolores Arce Ignacio, father of the ISSUE: Whether Exhibit No. 2 is a valid repudiation of inheritance?

minor Arsenio Martinez, the brother of respondent Felisa Martinez and

uncle of respondent Juan Martinez. Arsenio, Felisa and Juan were the RULING: NO, Exhibit No. 2 failed to meet the requirements of a
owners in equal parts of Crispulo’s real estate.
valid repudiation of inheritance as stated in Article 1008 of the Civil
Code. Being the case, it is merely a document evidencing
Dolores, as guardian of Arsenio, instituted this action in order to have Crispulo’s assignment of his right (share in his parent’s property)
her husband’s property divided and 1/3 of which belonging to Arsenio, to Felisa and her husband. 
should be turned over to her, as well as the 1/3 of the value of the
product of the land during the time she has been in exclusive Exhibit No. 2 is a contract executed with all the formalities of the law
possession of it should be given to her. This was opposed by Felisa, between Crispulo Martinez on the one side and Luciano Lopez and
the latter alleged that she and her husband already bought Crispulo’s Felisa Martinez on the other. As such, it can only be annulled for the
interest over the said property way back in 1908.
same reasons as any other contract of like character.

RTC RULING: In favor of Dolores.

The trial court was of the opinion that the execution of the above
quoted document was an attempt "to repudiate an inheritance" and
SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS
that the document does not produce this effect because it does not
meet the requirements of article 1008 of the Civil Code. In support of
this holding the court relied upon the language used in the fourth
paragraph. Crispulo Martinez stated therein that "in consideration of
these expenses, I hereby set forth that I renounce totally the share that
may belong to me and assign the said share to Luciano Lopez and
Felisa Martinez, or to their lawful heirs." Under the Civil Code,
repudiation of the inheritance is an act entirely voluntary and free,
made without consideration. An heir cannot renounce his inheritance in
favor of a designated heir or heirs, or any other person. (The substitute
referred to in paragraph 3 of article 1912 is the person designated by
the testator.) Neither can an heir renounce or repudiate his inheritance
so as to relieve himself of all liability after he had accepted the
inheritance, without the bene t of an inventory, and had received the
products therefrom as such heir. Acts of mere conservation or
professional administration do not constitute an acceptance of the
inheritance.
In the instant case, Crispulo Martinez had, by taking possession of the
property, exercising acts of dominion over it, and receiving products
therefrom for a period of more than eight years, accepted the
inheritance without the bene t of an inventory. He "renounced" his
interest in favor of designated persons, one of whom was not an heir
of his deceased parents, and for a valuable consideration. The word
"renounce," used in paragraph 4 of the document, does not, under the
terms of the document, constitute the repudiation of an inheritance.
The entire document must be considered together. Words, phrases or
clauses cannot be segregated and given a meaning which is contrary
to the terms of the entire document. "The whole contract must be
interpreted or read together in order to arrive at its true
meaning." (Barretto vs. Santa Marina, 26 Phil. Rep., 200.)
It having been clearly shown that Crispulo Martinez owed, on the 30th
day of August, 1908, Luciano Lopez and Felisa Martinez the sum of
P2,500, money loaned him while he was in school, and he being of
mature age, Exhibit No. 2 was, in truth and in law, an assignment by
Page 4 of 20
Crispulo of his interest in the property in question to Felisa Martinez
and her husband in payment of his debt. This act is authorized by
article 1175 of the Civil Code.
 
Case #2: MICHAEL C. GUY, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, HON. SIXTO MARELLA, JR., Presiding Judge, RTC,
Branch 138, Makati City and minors, KAREN DANES WEI and
KAMILLE DANES WEI, represented by their mother, REMEDIOS
OANES, respondents. [G.R. No. 163707. September 15, 2006.]
FACTS: A petition for letters of the administration to settle the Intestate
Estate of Sima Wei (aka Rufino Guy Susim) was instituted by
respondents Karen Oanes Wei and Kamille Oanes Wei (since they were
minors, they were represented by their mother, Remedies Oanes).
Karen and Kamille alleged that they are the duly acknowledged
illegitimate children of Sima Wei, who died intestate in Makati City on
October 29, 1992, leaving an estate valued at P10,000,000.00
consisting of real and personal properties. Wei’s known heirs are his
surviving spouse Shirley Guy and children, Emy, Jeanne, Cristina,
George and Michael, all surnamed Guy. Karen and Kamille prayed for
the appointment of a regular administrator for the orderly settlement of
Sima Wei's estate and in the meantime, petitioner Michael C. Guy, son
of Wei, be appointed as Special Administrator of the estate. Attached
to Karen and Kamille's petition was a Certification Against Forum
Shopping signed by their counsel, Atty. Sedfrey A. Ordoñez.
However, this was opposed by Michael by filing a Motion to Dismiss,
asserting that his deceased father left no debts and that his estate can
be settled without securing letters of administration pursuant to
Section 1, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court, and that Kamille and Karen
should have established their status as illegitimate children during the
lifetime of Sima Wei pursuant to Article 175 of the Family Code. This
was supported by Manifestation/Motion as Supplement to the Joint
Motion to Dismiss, which was filed by the other co-heirs alleging that
SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS Page 5 of 20
Karen and Kamille’s claims had been paid, waived, abandoned or do not have such right. Hence, Michael's invocation of waiver on
otherwise extinguished by reason of Remedios' June 7, 1993 Release the part of Karen and Kamille must fail. It was remanded to the
and Waiver of Claim stating that in exchange for the  financial and RTC for further proceedings.

educational assistance received from Michael, Remedios and her

minor children discharge the estate of Sima Wei from any and all To be valid and effective, a waiver must be couched in clear and
liabilities.
unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the intention of a party
to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to him. A waiver may
RTC RULING: In favor of Karen and Kamille. It denied the Joint Motion not be attributed to a person when its terms do not explicitly and
to Dismiss as well as the Supplemental Motion to Dismiss. It ruled that clearly evince an intent to abandon a right.

while the Release and Waiver of Claim was signed by Remedios, it had
not been established that she was the duly constituted guardian of her In this case, we find that there was no waiver of hereditary rights. The
minor daughters. Thus, no renunciation of right occurred.
Release and Waiver of Claim does not state with clarity the purpose of
its execution. It merely states that Remedios received P300,000.00 and
CA RULING: Affirmed RTC decision. 
an educational plan for her minor daughters "by way of  financial
assistance and in full settlement of any and all claims of whatsoever
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION: Michael argues that the Release and nature and kind . . . against the estate of the late Rufino Guy Susim."
Waiver of Claim executed by Remedios released and discharged the 15 Considering that the document did not specifically mention private
Guy family and the estate of Sima Wei from any claims or liabilities; respondents' hereditary share in the estate of Sima Wei, it cannot be
and that Karen and Kamille does not have the legal personality to construed as a waiver of successional rights.

institute the petition for letters of administration as they failed to prove

their liation during the lifetime of Sima Wei in accordance with Article Moreover, even assuming that Remedios truly waived the hereditary
175 of the Family Code.
rights of private respondents, such waiver will not bar the latter's
claim. Article 1044 of the Civil Code, provides:

ISSUE: Whether there is a valid renunciation or waiver of hereditary

rights of Kamille and Karen in their father’s estate?
ART. 1044. Any person having the free disposal of his property may
accept or repudiate an inheritance.

RULING: Remedios’ Release and Waiver of Claim is not a

valid renunciation or waiver of hereditary rights of Kamille and Any inheritance left to minors or incapacitated persons may be
Karen in their father’s estate, since it does not specifically state accepted by their parents or guardians. Parents or guardians may
their respective shares in the estate which shall be waived in favor repudiate the inheritance left to their wards only by judicial
of other heirs. In the present case, Karen and Kamille could not authorization.

have possibly waived their successional rights because they are

yet to prove their status as acknowledged illegitimate children of The right to accept an inheritance left to the poor shall belong to the
Wei. Michael himself has consistently denied that Karen and persons designated by the testator to determine the bene ciaries and
Kamille are his co-heirs. It would thus be inconsistent to rule that distribute the property, or in their default, to those mentioned in Article
they waived their hereditary rights when Michael claims that they 1030. (Emphasis supplied)

SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS
Parents and guardians may not therefore repudiate the inheritance of
their wards without judicial approval. This is because repudiation
amounts to an alienation of property which must pass the court's
scrutiny in order to protect the interest of the ward. Not having been
judicially authorized, the Release and Waiver of Claim in the instant
case is void and will not bar private respondents from asserting their
rights as heirs of the deceased.
removed from his o ce, since by his illegal acts in collecting large sums
Furthermore, it must be emphasized that waiver is the intentional
relinquishment of a known right. Where one lacks knowledge of a right,
there is no basis upon which waiver of it can rest. Ignorance of a
material fact negates waiver, and waiver cannot be established by a
consent given under a mistake or misapprehension of fact.
insolvent.


Case #3: TOMAS SISON, guardian of the minor children of the
deceased Ignacio Bellosillo, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEODEGARIO
AZARRAGA, defendant-appellant. [G.R. No. 8470. March 19, 1915.]
collected by him on account of the largest credit, he had deducted for
FACTS: On April 27. 1911, Isidro Azarraga executed his final will and
testament, in which he appointed his son respondent Leodegario
Azarraga as executor, and also in his will, Isidro directed to distribute
his property among his children and other relatives. Leodegario
receiving a certain number of carabaos (clause 5 of the will) and a
legacy of P8,115.72 for the valuable services rendered to Isidro (clause
6); Isidro further instituted as his sole and universal heirs his two
grandchildren called Maria Felisa and Jesus, both surnamed Bellosillo
y Azarraga, children of the deceased spouses Ignacio Bellosillo and
Filomena Azarraga, the last named being the testator's daughter
(clause 4). Said testator also directed that his son Leodegario Azarraga
and his son-in-law Miguel Robledo be appointed guardians of his said
grandchildren without being required to furnish bond therefor. In said
will is given a list of the real and personal property of the testator and
of his assets and liabilities.
alleges that he has never desired to present claims against said estate,
Page 6 of 20
 Leodegario collected large sums of money belonging to Isidro’s estate
in his care and paid some eight hundred or a thousand pesos of debts
against the same without the knowledge or prior approval of the
committee of appraisal or of the Court of First Instance. Later,
petitioner Tomas Sison, the guardian of Ignacio and Filomena, filed a
motion in order for Leodegario to show cause why he should not be
of money belonging to the estate in his care and in paying them out
without due authorization of the court, the said minor children of
Ignacio Bellosillo, as universal heirs of the deceased Isidro Azarraga,
are in danger of losing their interests and claims in his estate,
especially as the executor requests that the estate be declared
Leodegario appeared and stated under oath that he had made the
payments without the proper prior authorization for the purpose of
saving, as he succeeded in doing, some P3,000 to the estate by
making compromises and forestalling the presentation of claims for
greater amounts to the committee of appraisal; that from the P19,000
himself the sum of P8,000, the value of the machinery of the hacienda
that Isidro had sold, which machinery was his property and had never
belonged to his Isidro At the direction of the court, Leodegario
submitted on April 10, 1912, an inventory of Isidro’s property that was
in his possession, making therein the notation that the sum of P8,000
belongs to him as the value of two steam engines which are his
property and which were sold by Isidro along with his hacienda; that
the properties indicated by the letters G and H of the inventory, along
with some 30 carabaos, also belong to him; and that the property
indicated by the letter F therein belongs to Feliciana Panis.
In spite of the fact that Leodegario stated in open court and repeated
at pages 3 and 11 of his printed brief that he was ready to resign from
the administration of the said estate so that he might be able to
maintain his rights by presenting his claim against the same, he now
SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS Page 7 of 20
for, aside from the impossibility of doing so, it would amount to acting case of Dariano vs. Fernandez Fidalgo (14 Phil. Rep., 62) that courts of
against common sense, since being in possession of his own property probate jurisdiction should be very jealous in guarding the estates of
in the character of absolute owner, he is required to deliver it with the deceased persons, and said courts will always intervene for the
documents therefor to the administrator of the estate because of a purpose of remedying any injury the estate may suffer.

suspicion that it belongs thereto, only to claim it from said

administrator afterwards.
•  The property belonging to the estate of the deceased Isidro
RTC RULING: Ordered Leodegario to deliver to his successor Jose
Albar, administrator appointed de bonis non cum testamento annexo,
all the real and personal property, money, jewelry, and other objects
belonging to Leodegario’s estate with the papers, instruments of
credit, pawn tickets, and other documents therefor, and also the sum
of P8,000 which Leodegario paid to himself from the funds of the
estate, and the lands and carabaos which he claims as his property
and which are included in the inventory of the property left by the
deceased Azarraga. The court in its decision further ordered that the
said executor, Leodegario Azarraga, present at the proper time to the
new administrator, Jose Albar, his claim against the estate, to the end
that the property which he claims as his be excluded from the
inventory of the property of the estate of said deceased. 
the latter of certain haciendas in Binantucan, Capiz (clause 6 of
ISSUE: Whether Leodegario, as executor, can make payments of his
claims from the estate? 
Azarraga and not to the executor personally.
RULING: NO, Leodegario, as executor, cannot make payments of
his claims from the estate. It is improper for the executor to make
payments to himself and to take possession of the property of the
deceased that he might claim from the estate.
property by reason of some claims he had against the
The executor who alleges that he has claims against the estate in his
care is under the obligation, according to section 697 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, to give notice thereof, in writing, to the court, so that a
special administrator may be appointed to adjust his claim; this the
appellant has not done, although when the occasion arose he stated
that he was ready to resign from the office of administrator of the
property of the deceased Isidro Azarraga. It has been declared in the
Azarraga should forthwith be taken into legal custody and
liquidation thereof made; for the unsupported statement of the
executor is insu cient to exclude certain property, as is also the
statement that of the P19,971.44 collected from Unson P8,000
belonged to the appellant as the value of the machinery his
father Isidro Azarraga had sold to him, for, in addition to the
fact that the genuineness of the executor's claim against the
deceased does not appear in the record, the inventory
submitted by said executor demonstrates that the sum of
P19,971.44 belongs to the estate; and moreover, this amount,
added to the P15,000 still owed by the said Unson, makes the
sum of P34,971.44, which the testator Isidro Azarraga set down
in his will as owed by the said Timoteo Unson for the sale to
the will), so that if the said Timoteo Unson owed anything for
these haciendas he owed it to the estate of the said Isidro


The fact is indisputable that the herein appellant as executor
paid certain claims against the estate and retained for himself,
without the prior approval of the court or of the committee of
appraisal, the sum of P8,000 and certain real and personal
deceased and his estate. Aside from certain payments made by
him to other persons who had claims against the estate, it is
improper for the executor to make payments to himself and to
take possession of the property of the deceased that he might
claim from the estate, for Chapter XXXII of the Code of Civil
Procedure, which treats of the duties of executors and
administrators, contains no provision authorizing them to
SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS
perform such acts, but on the contrary, section 686 et seq. of
that code provide that the collection of claims against an
inheritance must be presented to the committee of appraisal.
(Susara vs. Martinez, 17 Phil. Rep., 254.)
 (1) That notwithstanding the appellants' opposition, he contracted the


Case #4: In re Estate of the deceased Mons. Juan Bautista Perfect
Gorordo. FATHER EMILIANO MERCADO , petitioner-appellee, vs.
MARIA GORORDO VIUDA DE JAEN, TELESFORA JAEN, and
CESAREA GORORDO DE REVILLES, oppositors-appellants.[G.R.
No. 43594. February 8, 1937.]
FACTS: Monsignor Juan Bautista Perfecto Gorordo, retired Bishop of
Cebu, died in Cebu on December 20, 1934, and left a will instituting his
sister, Maria Gorordo Viuda de Jaen, as the universal heir to his estate,
and in case of her death, his nieces Telesfora Jaen and Cesarea
Gorordo Revilles. Monsignor bequeathed part of his estate to the
various persons and entities mentioned in his will, and named Father
Emiliano Mercado, parish priest of San Nicolas, Cebu, as executor,
and in the absence of the latter Father Alejandro Espina, parish priest
of the Cebu Cathedral. Later on, Juan’s will was probated without
opposition and consequently the Court of First Instance of Cebu
confirmed the appointment of Father Emiliano Mercado as executor
after the latter filed a bond of P5,000.
Respondent heirs Maria Gorordo Viuda de Jaen, Telesfora Jaen and
Cesarea Gorordo de Revilles instituted in the will, however, excepted
to the order of February 15, 1935, appointing Father Emiliano Mercado
as the executor.
insinuating that he lacks the interest which a good executor
RTC RULING: The lower court denied their motion, hence the present
appeal. The appellants' opposition to the appointment of Father
Page 8 of 20
Mercado was based on his alleged unfitness and incapacity to
discharge the duties of executor for the following reasons:
services of Attorneys Hipolito Alo and Gabino R. Veloso to represent
him in these proceedings for the sole purpose of repaying the
obligations he owed said Attorney Alo;
 (2) that he cannot be impartial as executor because the church of San
Nicolas of which he is parish priest is one of the legatees named in the
will. It being natural that as such parish priest he would favor the
interests of his parish to those of the heir and the other legatees, and
above all, he is related to some of the legatees;
(3) that as the estate has no debts and the heirs instituted in the will
are all of age and are willing, according to them, to secure payment of
all the legacies, there is no necessity of making the estate incur such
unnecessary expenses as the executor's fees and expenses and his
attorneys' fees;
(4) that the appellants are better able to protect the interests of the
estate; and
 (5) that Attorney Margarito E. Revilles, married to the heir Cesarea
Gorordo, is willing to render professional services to the estate free of
charge.
• In support of these allegations, the appellants pointed out that
the named executor hired Attorney Alo, to whom he is under
obligation, in order to be able to repay him in some way not
with his own money but with the money of the estate, thereby
must have for the protection of the rights and interest of the
estate entrusted to him.
Issue: Whether Fr. Espina is unfit or unworthy of the trust of being
named executor of the estate?

SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS Page 9 of 20

RULING: NO,  Fr. Espina is fitted or worthy of the trust of being named  The appellants' proposition not to name any executor to save the
executor of the estate. 
estate unnecessary expenses, as the testator left no debts and the
heirs on the other hand, are willing to secure payment of the legacies,
 When the retired bishop Monsignor Juan Bautista Perfecto Gorordo is untenable. The will contains so many provisions, there are so many
chose Father Emiliano Mercado as executor and administrator of his legacies to deliver and pay, and it is premature to assert that the estate
estate after his death, he must have had good and sufficient reasons has no obligation or debt to pay. Thus, it is necessary to have an
therefore, and his will must be respected. The evidence shows that executor to take charge of the estate so as to protect the interests
when the deceased bishop made his will naming said priest in thereof and later enforce compliance with the will of the testator.

preference to anybody else, he was in the full enjoyment of his

intellectual faculties. Under the circumstances, it is not only just but  The appellants' last proposition that they and Attorney Margarito E.
also right to fully comply with his last will. In order for the court to Revilles could look after the interests of the estate better than Father
exercise its power to not appoint the named executor, the Mercado and attorneys Alo and Veloso, is likewise untenable. The
unworthiness, incapacity, ineptitude and unfitness of such person must estate in their hands would be no more immune from irregularities, and
be manifest and real and not merely imaginary.
the interests of the legatees amounting to more than those of the heirs
would not be better taken care of because of what may be inferred
The evidence shows that Attorneys Alo and Veloso were engaged by from the incident which took place during the preparation of the
Father Emiliano Mercado not as attorneys for the estate but as his inventory of the estate left by the testator.

own, in his capacity as petitioner for the probate of the will of Bishop
Monsignor Juan Bautista Perfecto Gorordo. It shows further that the 

special agreement he had with said attorneys was to the effect that
their fees would only be that determined and fixed by the court.

 The appellants' allegation that Father Mercado cannot be impartial as

executor because the church of which he is the parish priest is to
receive a legacy of P10,000 under the will, is untenable. His parish is
not a legatee as all that the will provides with respect to said sum of
P10,000 is as follows:

“To the poor of Cebu, Opon, and San Nicolas, I bequeath ten thousand
pesos (P10,000) under the administration and at the discretion of
whomsoever may be the Most Reverend Bishop of the Diocese.”

The foregoing provision does not give Father Mercado as executor,

even the right to intervene in the distribution and disposition of the
funds in question.

SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS Page 10 of 20

mortgage and foreclose it any time within the ordinary period of
limitations, and if he relies exclusively upon the mortgage, he shall
Case #5: GLICERIA C. LIWANAG, Special Administratrix of the not...share in the distribution of the assets.

Estate of PIO D. LIWANAG, petitioner , vs. HON. COURT OF

APPEALS, HON. JESUS DE VEYRA, as Judge of the Court of First Obviously, the herein respondent has chosen the second remedy,
Instance of Manila and MANUEL AGREGADO, respondents.  [G.R. having filed his action for foreclosure against the administratrix of the
No. L-20735. August 14, 1965.]
property.

FACTS: Petitioner Gliceria C. Liwanag is the special administratrix of The Rules of Court do not expressly prohibit making the special
the estate of Pio D. Liwanag. Respondent Manuel Agregado administratrix a defendant in a suit against the estate. Otherwise,
commenced against her as such special administratrix, Civil Case No. creditors would find the adverse effects of the statute of limitations
50897 of the same court, for the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage running against them in cases where the appointment of a regular
constituted in his favor by said Pio D. Liwanag during his lifetime administrator is delayed. So that if We are not to deny the present
moved to dismiss Agregado's complaint, upon the ground that as action on this technical ground alone, and the appointment of a regular
special administratrix she cannot be sued by a creditor of the administrator will be delayed, the very purpose for which the mortgage
deceased. 
was constituted will be defeated.

ISSUE: Whether Gliceria being the daughters of Isidro hass special

administrator, and may can be sued? 
Case #6: PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
MAURICIA SOTTO, as administratrix of the estate of CLARO ONG,
RULING: YES, Gliceria being the daughters of Isidro hass special defendant- appellant. [G.R. No. 10578. March 14, 1916.]

administrator, and may can be sued on the ground of (2) foreclose his
mortgage or realize upon his security by an action in court, FACTS: Respondent Mauricia Sotto is the administratrix of the estate
making the executor or administrator a party defendant, and if of Claro Ong. Meanwhile petitioner Pacific Commercial was a supplier
there is a deficiency after the sale of the mortgaged property, he of La Fortuna Bakery = It delivered merchandise amounting to
may prove the same in the testate or intestate proceedings.
P3,303.75 (P1,200 was paid and remaining balance was P2,103.75).
Claro Ong was the owner of La Fortuna Bakery and sold the same to
Section 7 of Rule 86 of the New Rules of Court provides that a creditor Mamerto Laudico who later on sold it to Matias Ubaldo.  Both Laudico
holding a claim against the deceased, secured by a mortgage or other and Ubaldo assumed all liabilities

collateral security, may pursue any of these remedies: (1) abandon his
security and prosecute his claim and share in the general distribution
of the assets of the estate; (2) foreclose his mortgage or realize
upon his security by an action in court, making the executor or
administrator a party defendant, and if there is a deficiency after
the sale of the mortgaged property, he may prove the same in the
Pacific knew about the sale to Laudico but not of the sale to Ubaldo.
The 3rd owner, Ubaldo made several payments to Pacific but P399
remains unpaid. When the original owner died, Pacific Commercial
presented its claim to commissioners of Ong’s estate.  Commissioners
denied claim of Pacific, it was instituted with the trial court.

testate or intestate proceedings; and (3) rely exclusively upon his

SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS Page 11 of 20
Defense of the estate of Claro Ong:  Mauricia Sotto is merely a special probate of the will of Claro Ong was pending;" and then cites the
administratrix -> Hence not liable to an action by creditor to pay any provisions of section 661 of the Code of Civil Procedure which
debts of the deceased
provides that a special administratrix shall not be liable to an action by
a creditor, or pay any debts of the deceased. Shortly after Mauricia
RTC RULING: The trial court found that the plaintiff had no knowledge Sotto was appointed special administratrix of the estate of the
of the second transfer of the bakery until after it had presented its deceased Claro Ong, commissioners were appointed and these
claim to the commissioners and that the P1,200 were paid with the commissioners proceeded to hear and consider claims presented
understanding on the part of the plaintiff that the same would be against that estate. The claim in question was one considered by the
applied to the account of the deceased Claro Ong.
commission. The plaintiff's complaint,

ISSUES:
presented after the appeal had been taken, makes the estate of Claro
Ong, defendant, represented by Mauricia Sotto. If any objection was
(1) Whether the estate of Ong is liable?
ever made upon this point in the court below or before the
commissioners, our attention has not been called to it in the briefs. The
(2) Whether there is a  special administratrix is allowed to pay the
first time the question was raised was in the printed briefs filed in this
estate’s debt? - No

court. The correctness of the plaintiff's claim has been fully considered
by the court below after hearing and the presentation of all the
RULINGS: Yes, the estate of Ong is liable. Also, Sotto cannot just be
testimony by both parties. The fact that Mauricia Sotto is only the
allowed to pay the estate’s debt even if he is the special administrator. 

special administratrix cannot prejudice in any way the interests of the

Record fails to disclose any attempt whatever on the part of Claro Ong estate which she represents.

to be released from his obligation to pay the plaintiff the amount in



question. There was no novation as Pacific did not consent to the
substitution of Ubaldo as new debtor. The fact that Mauricia Sotto is
only the special administratrix cannot prejudice in any way the
interests of the estate which she represents.

◦ The correctness of the plaintiff’s claim has been fully

considered by the court below after hearing and the
presentation of all the testimony by both parties.

• The claim of debtor, Pacific Commercial shall be paid by the

regular administrator of the estate of Claro Ong.

In discussing the last assignment of error, counsel for the appellant

says: "We admit that the defendant is an administratrix of the estate La
Fortuna, but she is only a special administratrix of that property
appointed for the only purpose of keeping in trust that bakery while the
SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS Page 12 of 20
Case #7: DORA PERKINS ANDERSON, petitioner-appellee, vs. ISSUES:  
IDONAH SLADE PERKINS, oppositor-appellant. [G.R. No. L-15388.
January 31, 1961.]
1. Whether the personal properties sought to be sold not being
perishable, the special administrator has no legal authority to
FACTS: Dora Perkins Anderson filed a petition for the probate of the sell them? 

supposed last will and testament of the late Eugene Arthur Perkins 2. Whether the opposition of the surviving spouse of the
and  the appointment of Alfonso Ponce Enrile as special administrator deceased that she is entitled to a large portion of the personal
of the estate. Court  approved appointment of special administrator  properties in question should be entertained ?

upon his posting of a bond. Idonah Slade Perkins, surviving spouse of

the deceased entered an opposition to the probate of the will
presented by petitioner Dora Perkins Anderson.
RULINGS: 1. Section 2, Rule 81, of the Rules of Court, specifically
provides that the special administrator "may sell such perishable and
The special administrator submitted an inventory of all the assets other property as the court orders sold", which shows that the special
which have come to his knowledge as belonging to the deceased administrator's power to sell is not limited to "perishable" property
Eugene Arthur Perkins at the time of his death. 2 years later, he only. It is true that the function of a special administrator is only to
submitted to the court a petition seeking authority to sell, or give away collect and preserve the property of the deceased until a regular
to some charitable or educational institution or institutions, certain administrator is appointed. But it is not alone the specific property of
personal effects left by the deceased, such as clothes, books, the estate which is to be preserved, but its value as well, as shown by
gadgets, electrical appliances, etc., which were allegedly deteriorating the legal provision for the sale by a special administrator of perishable
both physically and in value, in order to avoid their further deterioration property. It is in line with this general power of the special
and to save whatever value might be obtained in their disposition
administrator to preserve not only the property of the estate but also
its value, that section 2, Rule 81, also empowers such administrator to
Idonah Slade opposition Perkins filed an to the proposed sale sell "other property as the court ordered sold" .

reasoning that (1) most of the properties sought to be sold were

conjugal properties of herself and her deceased husband; and (2) that Indeed the records show that up to the time the propose sale was
unauthorized removal of fine pieces of furniture belonging to the estate asked for and judicially approved, no proceeding had as yet been
had been made.
taken, or even started, to segregate the alleged exclusive property of
the oppositor-appellant from the mass of the estate supposedly left by
CFI RULING: Lower court approved the proposed sale, authorizing the the deceased or to liquidate the conjugal partnership property of the
Sheriff of Manila to conduct the same. Idonah Slade Perkins moved to oppositor-appellant and the deceased. Until, therefore the issue of the
reconsider this order on the grounds, among others, that said order ownership of the properties sought to be sold is heard and decided,
was issued without a showing that the goods and chattels sought to and the conjugal partnership liquidated; or, at least, an agreement be
be sold were perishable, pursuant to Rule 81, section 2, Rules of reached with a appellant as to which properties of the conjugal
Court; and that the personalty sought to be sold represented the partnership she would not mind being sold to preserve their value the
lifetime savings and collections of oppositor; 
proposed sale is clearly premature. After all, most of the items sought
to be sold — pieces of furniture, kitchen and dinner ware, electrical
SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS
appliances, various gadget and books — can easily be protected and
preserved with proper care and storage measures in either or both of
two residential houses (in Manila and in Baguio City) left by the
deceased, so that no reasons of extreme urgency justify the proposed
sale at this time over the strong opposition and objection of oppositor-
appellant who may later be adjudged owner of a substantial portion of
the personal estate in question.3.It does not appear that appellant was
given a reasonable opportunity to point out which items in the
inventory she did not want sold. In fact, her opposition to the proposed
sale and later her motion for reconsideration to the order approving the
same were overruled by the court without so much as stating reasons
why the grounds for her opposition were not well-founded; the records
do not even show that an inquiry was made as to the validity of the
grounds of her opposition.




Page 13 of 20
Case #8: In the matter of the administration of the estate of Tan Po
Pic, deceased. MARTA TORRES, petitioner-appellant , vs. JUAN L.
JAVIER, as administrator of the estate of Tan Po Pic,
deceased, respondent -appellee. [G.R. No. 10560. March 24, 1916.]
FACTS: It appears that two women are claiming to be the legal wife of
Tan Po Pic, deceased, petitioner Marta Torres and a Chinese woman
named Yu Teng New. Marta Torres objected to the appointment of any
one except herself, while respondents Juan Cailles Tan Poo, on
behalf of the Chinese woman, opposed the appointment of Marta
Torres. The probate court being unable to determine who, if either, was
the lawful wife of the deceased, appointed a disinterested third person
to act as administrator.
ISSUE: Whether Tan Y. Soc’s appointment as administrator is proper?
RULING: YES, Tan Y. Soc’s appointment as administrator is
proper. 
It appears that Tan Y. Soc was appointed administrator of the said Tan
Po Pic, deceased, the Court of First Instance of Manila under the
misapprehension that Tan Po Pic was a resident of the city of Manila at
the time of his death. After it had been ascertained that the deceased
was a resident of the Province of Rizal, the Court of First Instance of
Manila transferred the case to the Court of First Instance of Rizal. In
that court, as we have already seen, the appointment by the Court of
First Instance of Manila was disregarded the proceedings were begun
for the appointment of an administrator by the Court of First Instance
of Rizal.
It must be remembered that the probate court did not find as a fact
that there was a wife in China; nor does his appointment of a third
person determine the fact of the existence of another wife in China.
The court considered the facts and circumstances as they were
presented in the proceedings and upon the whole believed it for the
best interest of all concerned to appoint as administrator a
SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS
disinterested third person, particularly in view of the fact that there was
likely to be litigation between Marta Torres and the Chinese wife as to
which is in fact his legal wife and entitled to an interest in the estate of
the deceased Tan Po Pic. We do not find the errors assigned sufficient
to warrant any action on the part of this court.
ISSUE: Whether Locsin’s appointment as special administrator is
We do not believe the court erred in this respect. The court had a right
in view of the controversy between the women to name a disinterested
third person as administrator and leave the controversy between them
to be settled in the administration proceedings at the proper time.
parties, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the appeal is
We are of the opinion that the decision of the probate court is so far
correct that it must be affirmed. Section 642 of the Code of Civil
Procedure requires that letters of administration should be granted,
first, to the surviving husband or wife; second, to other relatives in the
order named; third, in case the surviving wife or next of kin or person
selected by them be unsuitable, the administration may be granted to
some other person, such as one of the principal creditors; and fourth, if
there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, the
administration may go to such person as the court may appoint.
case, the appointment shall not be revoked on appeal.
Case #9: In the matter of the intestate estate of VICENTE TAD-Y,
deceased. JOSE E. TAD-Y, represented by his guardian ad litem
JUAN JAMORA, appellant, MARIA TAD-Y, with her husband
CASIMIRO ARGUELLES and MANUEL LOCSIN, judicial
administrator, appellees. [G.R. No. 22104. December 2, 1924.
Manila, ALFRED D' ALMEIDA, brother of Carmen Johannes, as
FACTS: Vicente Tad-Y died leaving a will survived by his wife and son.
The will cannot be admitted to probate because in its execution the
solemnities required by the law were not complied with. Hence, an
intestate proceeding was instituted.
Singapore. His heirs are: petitioner B.E Johannes, husband, Frederick
The Court appointed Locsin as special administrator, he being one of
the persons named by the testator Vicente Tad-y as executors in his
will.
Page 14 of 20
Esler alleged that the trial court erred in appointing Manuel Locsin as
administrator in this proceeding without the consent of Rosario Esler
Vda. de Tad-Y and the minor Jose E. Tad-Y.
valid?
RULING: YES,  Locsin’s appointment as special administrator is
valid.  After considering the reason given in the briefs of both
groundless. If the administrator Manuel Locsin was appointed by
the court as special administrator, section 660 of the Code of Civil
Procedure does not permit any appeal from the appointment of
said administrator. If Manuel Locsin was appointed by the trial
court as administrator of the intestate estate in accordance with
section 642 of Act No. 190, the trial court had discretion to issue
the letters of administrator to any of the persons mentioned in
said section, and unless there has been an abuse of discretion,
which does not appear to have been committed in the present
Case #10: B.E. JOHANNES, husband of Carmen Theodora
Johannes, deceased, as administrator; CARLOS D' ALMEIDA and
IDA JOHANNES, with her husband, J.E. JOHANNES,relators, vs.
Honorable GEORGE R. HARVEY, as judge of First Instance of
administrator, and PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, as late guardian
for a certain cash deposit of Carmen Johannes, respondents.
 [G.R. No. 18600. March 9, 1922.]
FACTS: CARMEN THEODORA JOHANNES died intestate in
Charles, Alfred, and Ida D’Almeida, her siblings. All the heirs lives in
Singapore except for brother Alfred.

SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS Page 15 of 20

B.E Johannes was appointed as administrator of the properties of the What is sought in the Philippine Islands is an ancillary administration
deceased situated in Singapore by the SC Straits Settlements in subsidiary to the domiciliary administration, conformable to the
Singapore.
provisions of sections 601, 602, and 603 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.

Respondent Alfred, on the other hand, was appointed administrator of

Manila estate – deposits in Manila banks previously under The proper course of procedure would be for the ancillary
guardianship by Phil. Trust Company amounting to P109,732.55.
administrator to pay the claims of creditors, if there be any, settle
the accounts, and remit the surplus to the domiciliary jurisdiction,
Meanwhile, the other heirs filed a petition to annul the appointment of for distribution among the next of kin.

Alfred and to issue an order directing Judge George Harvey to give it

to B.E Johannes as lawful administrator.  They claim that Judge Harvey It is almost a universal rule to give the surviving spouse a preference
gravely abused its discretion.
when an administrator is to be appointed, unless for strong reasons it
is deemed advisable to name someone else.

ISSUE: Whether Alfred’s appointment as administrator of

Carmen’s manila estate?
While naming the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, as
one to whom administration can be granted, leaves this to the
RULING: YES,  Alfred’s appointment as administrator of Carmen’s discretion of the court to determine, for it may be found that the
manila estate.
surviving spouse is unsuitable for the responsibility. Moreover,
nonresidence is a factor to be considered in determining the propriety
It is often necessary to have more than one administration of an estate. of the appointment, and in this connection, it is to be noted that the
When a person dies intestate owning property in the country of his husband of the deceased, the administrator of the principal
domicile as well as in a foreign country, administration is had in both administration, resides in Singapore.

countries. That which is granted in the jurisdiction of decedent's last

domicile is termed the principal administration, while any other Ancillary letters should ordinarily be granted to the domicilliary
administration is termed the ancillary administration.
representative, if he applies therefor, or to his nominee, or attorney; but
in the absence of express statutory requirement the court may in its
The reason for the ancillary adminstration is because a grant of discretion appoint some other person.

administration does not ex proprio vigore have any effect beyond

the limits of the country in which it is granted. The ancillary
administration is proper, whenever a person dies, leaving in a country
other than that of his las domicile, property to be administered in the
nature of assets of the decedent, liable for his individual debts or to be
distributed among his heirs.
and is appealable.
Pursuant to section 783 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an order of a
Court of First Instance appointing an administration of the estate
of a deceased person constitutes a final determination of the
rights of the parties thereunder, within the meaning of the statute,

The principal administration in this instance is that at the domicile of

the late Carmen Theodora Johannes in Singapore, Straits Settlements.
SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS Page 16 of 20
Case #11: In the matter of the testate estate of the late DA. the giving of a bond by an administrator is an necessary expense in
MARGARITA DAVID. CARLOS MORAN SISON, Judicial the care, management and settlement of the estate within the meaning
Administrator, petitioner-appellant, vs. NARCISA F. TEODORO, of the law, because these expenses are incurred "after the executor or
heiress, oppositor-appellee. G.R. No. L-9271. March 29, 1957.]
administrator has met the requirement of the law and has entered upon
the performance of his dutie

FACTS: Petitioner Carlos Moran Sison was appointed judicial

administrator, without compensation, of the estate of Margarita David, 

and was required to file a bond before assuming his duties. Sison filed
a bond in the amount of P5,000 and assumed his duties. 

 
Case #12: FELICISIMO C. JOSON, administrator-appellee, vs.
1955: Sison filed an accounting of his administration, wherein, he EDUARDO JOSON, ET AL., heirs-appellants. [G.R. No. L-9686. May
included of the expenses of administration the amount he had paid 30, 1961.]

Visayan Surety & Insurance Corporation for the renewal of his bond. 

FACTS: 

Narcisa F. Teodoro, one of the heirs, objected, claiming that the sums
• Tomas Joson died on July 5, 1945 in Quezon, Nueva Ecija
paid for renewal of Sison’s bond was not a necessary expenses of
leaving behind heirs and properties.

administration and should not be charged to the estate. 

• He married three times and was survived by nine (9) heirs: two
ISSUE: Whether a judicial administrator serving without compensation, (2) children and grandchildren by his first wife Eufemia de la
is entitled to charge as an expense of administration the premiums
Cruz; two (2) daughters by his second wife Pomposa Miguel
paid on his bond? 

and his third wife and surviving widow Dominga M. Joson.

• Upon his death, his will was presented to the Court of First
RULING: NO, a judicial administrator serving without
Instance of Nueva Ecija by his son Felicisimo Joson for
compensation, is not entitled to charge as an expense of
probate. In August, 1945, said will having been duly probated,
administration the premiums paid on his bond

Felicisimo Joson was appointed administrator of the estate

Position of an executor or administrator is one of trust.
and, accordingly, he filed an inventory of the properties left by
the deceased.

It is proper for the law to safeguard the estates of deceased persons • The administrator prepared accounts that were never approved
by requiring the administrator to give a suitable bond, and that the by the court.

ability to give this bond is in the nature of a qualification for the office. 
• Eduardo Joson, one of the heirs, filed an opposition to all the
 The ability to give this bond is in the nature of a qualification for the
office. The execution and approval of the bond constitute a condition
precedent to acceptance of the responsibilities of the trust.If an
accounts filed by the administrator where he alleged that the
administrator diminished the shares of the heirs in the yearly
produce of the properties and had padded his expenses of
administration.

individual does not desire to assume the position of executor or • In the meantime, the heirs were able to compromise their
administrator, he may refuse to do so. It is far-fetched to conclude that differences and entered into an extrajudicial settlement and
SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS Page 17 of 20
partition of the entire estate. This settlement was contained in (1)  Whether the duty of an administrator to make an accounting of his
two documents wherein they manifested that they are entering administration a mere incident, which can be avoided once the estate
into it because of their desire to put an end to the judicial has been settled? No.

proceeding and administration.

• But, as the court was never informed of this extrajudicial (2)  Whether the proceedings are deemed terminated by the mere
settlement either by the administrator or by the heirs, it issued execution of an extrajudicial partition of the estate without the
an order requiring the administrator to file an accounting of his necessity of having the accounts of the administrator heard and
administration from 1949 to 1954, which accordingly the approved by the court? No.

administrator complied with.

• However, on November 25, 1954, without said accounts having (3)  Is the administrator ipso facto relieved of his duty of proving his
been heard or approved, the administrator filed a motion to account from the moment said partition has been executed? No. 

declare the proceedings closed and terminated and to relieve

him of his duties as such.
RULINGS: NO, the duty of an administrator to make an accounting
• Heir Eduardo Joson filed an opposition to said motion but, after of his administration is not a mere incident, and which can be
hearing, the court issued an order declaring the proceedings avoided once the estate has been settled. NO, the proceedings are
terminated and relieving the administrator not only of his duties deemed terminated by the mere execution of an extrajudicial
as such but also of his accounts notwithstanding the heirs' partition of the estate without the necessity of having the
opposition to said accounts.
accounts of the administrator heard and approved by the court.
• According to the trial court, the report of the administrator is a NO,  the administrator ipso facto is not relieved of his duty of
mere incident in the proceeding to wind up the estate of the proving his account from the moment said partition has been
deceased, and If the parties concerned have already entered executed

into an extra-judicial settlement of the estate, the same should

Section 1 of Rule 86 categorically charges an administrator "with the
put an end to this proceeding. Once this proceeding is
whole of the estate of the deceased which has come into his
terminated, the incidents thereto must yield, since the only
possession at the value of appraisement contained in the inventory;
purpose of submitting a report of the accounts by the
with all the interest, profit, and income of such an estate; and with the
administrator is to facilitate the liquidation. The trial court also
proceeds of so much of the estate as is hold by him, at the price at
said that the administration of an estate cannot be an end but
which sold.”

only a means of settlement of the estate, and therefore, calling

on the administrator to account for his administration becomes  Section 8 of the same rule imposes upon him the duty to render an
unnecessary from the moment that the heirs have already account of his administration within one year from his appointment,
entered into an extra-judicial settlement.
unless the court otherwise directs, as well as to render such further
ISSUES:
accounts as the court may require until the estate is fully settled.

SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS Page 18 of 20

 Section 10 provides that before an account of the administrator is Case #13: BETTY T. CHUA, JENNIFER T. CHUA-LOCSIN, BENISON
allowed notice shall be given to all persons interested of the time and T. CHUA, and BALDWIN T. CHUA, petitioners, vs. ABSOLUTE
place of examining and allowing the same.
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and COURT OF APPEALS,
respondents.  [G.R. No. 144881. October 16, 2003.]

Section 9 expressly directs that the court shall examine the

administrator upon oath with respect to every matter relating to his FACTS: Petitioner Betty T. Chua was appointed as administratrix of the
account except when no objection is made to the allowance of the intestate estate of the deceased Jose L. Chua. Thereafter, she
account and its correctness is satisfactorily established by competent submitted to the trial court an inventory of all the real and personal
testimony.
properties of the deceased.1awphi1.nét

The duty of an administrator to render an account is not a mere One of the creditors of the deceased, [herein respondent] Absolute
incident of an administration proceeding which ran be waived or Management Corporation, filed a claim on [sic] the estate

disregarded when the same is terminated; rather, it is a duty that has to

be performed and duly acted upon by the court before the Absolute Management Corporation noticed that the deceased’s shares
administration is finally ordered closed and terminated. When the of stocks with Ayala Sales Corporation and Ayala Construction Supply,
administrator moved the court to close the proceedings and relieve Inc. were not included in the inventory of assets.

him of his administration and of his accounts, the heirs who objected
thereto objected likewise to the closing of the proceedings invoking Absolute Management Corporation, suspecting that the documents
their right to be heard but the court ignored their opposition and attached to Betty T. Chua’s reply were spurious and simulated, filed a
granted the motion setting forth as reasons therefor what we quoted in motion for the examination of the supposed transferees. xxx It
the early part of this decision.
premised its motion on Section 6, Rule 87.

The fact that all the heirs of the estate have entered into an TRIAL COURT RULING: Denied the motion.

extrajudicial settlement and partition in order to put an end to their

differences cannot be interpreted as a waiver of the objections of the CA RULING: the Court of Appeals pointed out that the presentation of
the deeds of assignment executed by the decedent in petitioners’
heirs to the accounts submitted by the administrator, especially when
favor does not automatically negate the existence of concealment. The
there is nothing provided in said partition that the aforesaid accounts
appellate court stated that it is a common occurrence in estate
shall be deemed waived or condoned.  This is more so when,
proceedings for heirs to execute simulated deeds of transfer which
according to the oppositors, the administrator has committed in his
conceal and place properties of the decedent beyond the reach of
accounts a shortage in the amount of P132,600.00 which certainly
creditors.

cannot just be brushed aside by a mere technicality. The case should

be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals

reads:WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The order dated
    

February 7, 2000 of respondent Judge Manuel P. Dumatol is hereby

SET ASIDE. He is hereby ORDERED to give due course to petitioner’s
SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS Page 19 of 20
"Motion for the Examination of the Administratrix and Others" and question of ownership, when that property is properly presented to the
thereafter, to dispose of the claim accordingly.
court.

ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ordered the trial court In the present case, some of the transferees of the shares of stock do
to give due course to the Motion for Examination? Yes
not appear to be heirs of the decedent. Neither do they appear to be
parties to the intestate proceedings. Third persons to whom the
RULING: YES, the Court of Appeals correctly ordered the trial decedent’s assets had been conveyed may be cited to appear in court
court to give due course to the Motion for Examination. Section 6 and examined under oath as to how they came into possession of the
of Rule 87 seeks to secure evidence from persons suspected of decedent’s assets. In case of fraudulent conveyances, a separate
having possession or knowledge of the properties left by a action is necessary to recover these assets.

deceased person, or of having concealed, embezzled or conveyed

any of the properties of the deceased.16
Taken in this light, there is no reason why the trial court should disallow
The court which acquires jurisdiction over the properties of a deceased
person through the filing of the corresponding proceedings has
supervision and control over these properties. The trial court has the
inherent duty to see to it that the inventory of the administrator lists all
the properties, rights and credits which the law requires the
administrator to include in his inventory. In compliance with this duty,
the court also has the inherent power to determine what properties,
rights and credits of the deceased the administrator should include or
exclude in the inventory. An heir or person interested in the properties
of a deceased may call the court’s attention that certain properties,
the examination of the alleged transferees of the shares of stocks. This
is only for purposes of eliciting information or securing evidence from
persons suspected of concealing or conveying some of the decedent’s
properties to the prejudice of creditors. Petitioners’ admission that
these persons are the decedent’s assignees does not automatically
negate concealment of the decedent’s assets on their part. The
assignment might be simulated so as to place the shares beyond the
reach of creditors. In case the shares are eventually included in the
estate, this inventory is merely provisional and is not determinative of
the issue of ownership. A separate action is necessary for
determination of ownership and recovery of possession

rights or credits are left out from the inventory. In such a case, it is
likewise the court’s duty to hear the observations of such party. The
court has the power to determine if such observations deserve
attention and if such properties belong prima facie to the estate.

However, in such proceedings the trial court has no authority to decide

whether the properties, real or personal, belong to the estate or to the
persons examined. If after such examination there is good reason to
believe that the person examined is keeping properties belonging to
the estate, then the administrator should file an ordinary action in court
to recover the same. Inclusion of certain shares of stock by the
administrator in the inventory does not automatically deprive the
assignees of their shares. They have a right to be heard on the
SUCCESSION PART 12 DIGESTS Page 20 of 20
> The executor or administrator may seek reimbursement from the
Case #14: SALONGA HERNANDEZ & ALLADO, petitioner, vs. estate for the sums paid in attorney’s fees

OLIVIA SENGCO PASCUAL and THE HONORABLE COURT OF

APPEALS, respondents. [G.R. No. 127165. May 2, 2006.]
> if it can be shown that the services of the lawyer redounded to the
benefit of the estate

FACTS: Dona Adela Pascual was married to Don Andres Pascual.

They have no children and executrix, Dra. Olivia Pascual is the 2 Recourses of Lawyers should executors refuse to pay professional
illegitimate niece  of Don Andres Pascual. Don Andres died intestate fees:

and predeceased Dona Adela, while the latter died testate years later,
appointing Dra. Olivia Pascual as executrix of her will. Petitioner 1.         file an action against the executor or administrator, but in his/
Salonga Hernandez is a professional law partnership and their services her personal capacity and not as administrator or executor

were engaged by the Executrix Dra. Olivia Pascual in the settlement of

the estate of Dona Adela Pascual. In their 1987 retainer agreement, 2.         file a petition in the testate or intestate proceedings, asking the
court to direct the payment of attorney’s fees as an expense of
which Dra. Pascual signed, the final professional fee “shall be 3% of
administration

the total gross estate as well as the fruits thereof based on the court
approved inventory of the estate. Salonga Hernandez Law Firm
> Resort to option 2 means all the heir must be notified of the claim

obtained a favorable judgment, the will presented by Dra. Pascual was

allowed. The firm then filed a Notice of Attorney’s Lien on the > The court held that the firm incompletely resorted to the second
properties of the Estate of Dona Adela. The firm applied as well for a option

Notice of Writ of Execution

> BUT it did not serve notice to all the heirs of Dona Adela Pascual

ISSUE: Whether a lawyer who renders legal services to the executor or

administrator of an estate can claim attorney’s fees against the estate > Requisite notice to the heirs, devisees, and legatees is anchored on
instead of the executor or administrator?
the constitutional principle that no person shall be deprived of property
without due process of law

RULING: YES, a lawyer who renders legal services to the executor or > Payment of such attorney’s fees necessarily diminishes the estate of
administrator of an estate can claim attorney’s fees against the estate the decedent, and may effectively diminish the value of the
instead of the executor or administrator. Attorney’s fees chargeable testamentary dispositions made by the decedent

to the estate, not only to the share of Dra. Pascual. However, the

court remanded the case to RTC Malabon to hear the Petition for
Payment of Professional Fees

General Rule:  it is the executor or administrator who is primarily liable

for attorney’s fees due to the lawyer who rendered legal services for
the executor or administrator in relation to the settlement of the estate.