Rule 81 Bonds of Executors and Administrators o The administrator is accountable on his bond along with the sureties for
ntable on his bond along with the sureties for the
G.R. No. 43351 – Cosme de Mendoza v. Pacheco and Cordero
Laurel, J.
Manuel Soriano, ex-administrator of the estate of Baldomero Cosme was indebted to the
estate in the sum of P23,603. CFI ordered the execution of his bond after he was unable to
turn over said amount. The new administrator also had the sheriff levy on the properties of
Soiano’s sureties Pacheco and Cordero to pay the remaining balance. The sureties
appealed to the SC alleging that CFI as probate courts had no authority to order execution
of the administrator’s bond in the same proceeding. SC held that such is within the probate
court’s power albeit not expressly stated by law.
DOCTRINE
Possessed, as it is, with an all-embracing power over the administrator's bond and over
administration proceedings, a Court of First Instance in a probate proceeding cannot be
devoid of legal authority to execute and make that bond answerable for the very purpose for
which it was filed.
FACTS
1. Manuel Soriano was former administrator of the estate of Baldomero Cosme. He filed
a bond for P5,000, for which appellants Januario Pacheco and Raymundo Cordero wer
sureties.
2. Soriano’s account upon approval showed him indebted to the estate for P23,603.21.
3. As he was unable to turn over said amount to the new administrartrix Rosario Cosme,
CFI ordered the execution of his bond after serving notice to the sureties.
4. After a settlement between Cosme and Soriano, Soriano’s indebtedness was reduced
to P5000. Cosme then had the sheriff levy on the property of the sureties and advertise
the public sale thereof to collect said sum.
5. Pacheco and Cordero both filed motions to be discharged from the bond, which were
denied by CFI. AN appeal filed to the SC was dismissed for being filed too late.
6. The case was remanded to CFI, where sureties filed a motion challenging for the first
time the jurisdiction of the trial court to issue the order executing the bond. Said motion
was denied hence this appeal.
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. W/N the trial court had jurisdiction to order the execution of the administrator’s
bond? YES.
 Appellants claim that nothing in the law or Code of Civil Procedure states that the
CFI, acting as probate courts have the power to order the execution of the
administrator’s bond.
 It lies within the discretion of the court to select an administrator of the estate of a
deceased person.
o Before an administrator, or an executor, enters upon the execution of his trust,
and letters testamentary or of administration are issued, the person to whom
they are issued is required to give a bond in such reasonable sum as the court
directs, with one or more sufficient sureties, conditioned upon the faithful
performance of his trust (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 643, 662, cf. Rule 81
Sec 1)
1 mismanagement of the estate of a deceased person by his or her personal representative
performance of certain legal obligations.
 It is clear that CFI, exercising probate jurisdiction, is empowered to require the
filing of the administrator's bond, to fix the amount thereof, and to hold it
accountable for any breach of the administrator's duty.
 Possessed, as it is, with an all-embracing power over the administrator's
bond and over administration proceedings, a Court of First Instance in a
probate proceeding cannot be devoid of legal authority to execute and make
that bond answerable for the very purpose for which it was filed.
 The law does not say expressly that such court has power to execute the bond of
an administrator, but the power exists by necessary and logical implication.
 When the accountability of an administrator's bond is spoken of in the very
provisions dealing with administration proceedings, it would involve a strained
construction to hold that where an administrator is held liable for a devastavit 1 for
having squandered and misapplied property which he was in duty bound to
marshal and conserve, the estate is without a remedy to go against the
administrator's bond in the same probate proceedings, but in an action outside of
and separate from it.
o Section 683, Code of Civil Procedure (cf. Rule 85, Sec 11): "Upon the
settlement of the account of an executor or administrator, trustee, or
guardians, a person liable as surety in respect to such amount may, upon
application, be admitted as a party to such accounting, and may have the right
to appeal as hereinafter provided." From which we may infer that a surety may
be charged with liability upon the bond during the process of accounting, that
is, within the recognized confines of probate proceedings, and not in an action
apart from such proceedings.
 Appellants cited several cases where the Court held that probate courts have no
power to adjudicate on claims of other persons on property forming part of the
estate, by title adverse to the deceased. However, the execution of an
administrator's bond, unlike the questions involved in the cited cases, is as
necessary a part and incident of the administration proceeding as the filing of such
bond or the fixing of its amount.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Order appealed from affirmed.
OTHER NOTES
Villa-Real, Dissent:
 A summary execution of the bond of an executor or administrator with a mere
notice to his sureties does not afford them an adequate opportunity to set up
defenses which the law guarantees to them.
 The only procedure by which the liability of an executor or administrator and his
sureties be enforced on their bond is, therefore, by an ordinary action in court.
DIGESTER: Sophia Sy
1