1.

The persons who can take charge or administer the estate of the decedent
include the executor, administrator or administrator with a will annexed.

The executor is the person named by the testator in his will for the
administration of his property after his death.

The administrator is the one appointed by the court in case there is no will.

Whereas, administrator with a will annexed is a person appointed by the
court, although there is a will, but the said will does not appoint any
executor, or if said appointed person is either incapacitated or unwilling to
serve.

2. Testamentary capacity requires that the testator be of sound mind and freely
executed his will. To be of sound mind, he must be able to determine the
nature of his estate he would like to dispose, the object of his bounty and the
character of testamentary act. On the other hand, testamentary privilege is
simply the right given by law to a person to dispose of his property when he
dies.


3. Yes. Generally, the court cannot set aside such order of preference since
administration must be given observing such order of preference: first, the
surviving spouse, or next of kin, or both or to such person requested by them
if willing and competent to serve; second, one or more of the principal
creditor; and third, any other person that the court may select.

However, the same is not absolute. An exception would be when those having
preferential right are not competent and willing to serve, or they neglect to
apply for letters administration for 30 days after decedent’s death, then such
may be granted to other person under the sound discretion of the trial court.

More, the order of appointment of regular administrator is final and
appealable. Hence, not an interlocutory order since the same is appealable.


4. Facts:

Francisco Valmores, who claims to be the adopted son of spouses
Domingo Valmores and deceased Rosalia Saquitan, filed a petition
recommending the appointment of Eulogio Eusebio as administrator
claiming that the nearest relatives of said decedent are the husband,
Domingo Valmores, and the petitioner Francisco Valmores; and that the
surviving spouse Domingo Valmores is more than 80 years of age and
 physically unfit to discharge the duties of administrator. On the same day of
the presentation of the petition, the Clerk of court issued a notice setting a
date for the hearing of the petition and ordering the publication of the notice
in the newspaper "La Opinion." On the schedule day, no one appeared except
counsel for the petitioner and petitioner himself did not also appear. Counsel
for the petitioner proved the publication of the notice of hearing and,
afterwards, presented his witness, Raymundo Delmindo, who declared that
he is the brother of Francisco Valmores that his brother had been adopted by
the spouses and that deceased did not leave any will, that her nearest relative
is her surviving husband who is 80 years of age and incapable of
administering the estate. Afterwhich, the proceedings for the settlement of
the estate took place in rapid succession. Hence, this case was filed.

Issue:

WON a notice to interested parties a jurisdictional requirement for
petition for administration

Ruling:

Yes, the requirement as to notice is essential to the validity of the
proceedings in order that no person may be deprived of his right or property
without due process of law. The absence of notice to heirs becomes the more
apparent in the case at bar, where evidently a stranger has been able to
railroad the proceedings in court without opportunity of the person most
interested in the estate of the deceased to appear and contest in due time the
right of the petitioner or the appointment of the person recommended as
administrator.

More, records of the case also disclose fatal irregularities in the required
notice to be given. Nowhere does it appear from the record that Domingo
Valmores was ever personally notified of the filing of the petition or of the
time and place for hearing the same. His first opposition shows that he was
not aware of the hearing at all. He was notified of the proceedings for the first
time when the inventory was sent him sometime on November 29, 1952.


Section 3 of Rule 79 of the Rules of Court provides:

“When a petition for letters of administration is filed in the court
having jurisdiction, such court shall fix a time and place for hearing
the petition, and shall cause notice thereof to be given to the known
heirs and creditors of the decedent and to any other persons believed
to have an interest in the estate, in the manner provided in sections 3
and 4 of Rule 76.”

 Hence, notice is a jurisdictional requirement for the petition for
administration.


5. The Regular administrator’s appointment is final and appealable while a
special administrator’s appointment on the other hand is interlocutory.

One of the obligations of the former is to pay the debts of the estate while the
latter cannot pay such.

More, the former is appointed when decedent died intestate or did not
appoint an executor in his will whereas the latter is appointed when there is
delay in granting letters testamentary or administrator.

More so, jurisprudence dictates that a probate court may appoint a special
administrator in cases wherein there is appeal in the allowance or
disallowance of the will, when the executor or administrator is a claimant
against the estate he represents and when there is any other cause, arising
from the probate of the will.