RULE 79 #1 3.

He is a resident of Davao City, and thus if b) The names, ages, and residences of the heirs,
appointed as administrator of the estate, the and the names and residences of the creditors,
G.R. No. L-44888 February 7, 1992 bulk of which is located in Butuan City, “he of the decedent;
would not be able to perform his duties c) The probable value and character of the
efficiently”. property of the estate;
PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, petitioner,
d) The name of the person for whom letters of
vs.
The heirs instead propose and pray that administration are prayed.
FIDEL P. DUMLAO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of
BonifacioCanonoy, one of the deceased’s sons, be
Agusan Del Norte and Butuan City, BONIFACIO
appointed administrator of the said intestate estate and But no defect in the petition shall render void the issuance
CANONOY, Judicial Administrator of the Estate of Regino
that the corresponding letters of administration be issued of letters of administration.
Canonoy, CARMEN VDA. DE CANONOY, TEODULO
in his favour. The trial court, after due hearing, appointed
CANONOY, REGINO CANONOY, JR., MARIANITA
BonifacioCanonoy as administrator of the estate of the The jurisdictional facts alluded to are: the death of the
CANONOY GUINTO and GLORIA CANONOY
deceased. testator, his residence at the time of his death in the
BASA, respondents.
province where the probate court is sitting or, if he is an
Petitioner Shell filed its claim against the estate of the inhabitant of a foreign country, his having left his estate in
Dominguez & Paderna Law Offices Co. for petitioner. deceased. Upon joinder of the issues on the said claim, the such province. These facts are amply enumerated in the
trial court set the pre-trial. The administrator filed a petition filed by Mr. Gonzales.
Wenceslao B. Rosales for private respondents. Motion to Dismiss the claim alleging that the court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter and nature Clearly, the allegation that a petitioner seeking letters of
DAVIDE, JR., J.: thereof because the petitioner therein, Mr. Gonzales, is administration is an interested person does not fall within
not the “interested person” as contemplated by Rule 79, the enumeration of jurisdictional facts. A Motion to
Section 2 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner Shell countered Dismiss may lie not on the basis of lack of jurisdiction on
Facts: the motion, contending that the interest of Mr. Gonzales the part of the court, but rather on the ground of lack of
in the estate is not a jurisdictional fact that needs to be legal capacity to institute the proceedings.
Ricardo Gonzales, District Manager of Shell Philippines for alleged in the petition.
Mindanao, filed a petition entitled, “In the Matter of the In Saguinsin vs. Lindayag, the Court defined an “interested
Intestate Estate of the Deceased ReginoiCanonoy, Petition Respondent Judge granted the motion and dismissed the party” as one who would be benefitted by the estate, such
for Letters of Administration, Ricardo M. Gonzales, case. as an heir or one who has a claim against the estate, such
Petitioner” with the RTC of Agusan del Norte and Butuan as a creditor; this interest must be material and direct, not
City, praying that he be appointed as judicial administrator Issue: merely indirect or contingent. As an exemption, an
of the estate of the deceased ReginoCanonoy. objection to a petition for letters of administration on that
Whether or not the jurisdictional facts that need to be ground may be barred by waiver or estoppel.
Judge Echavez Jr. issued an order setting the hearing on stated in a petition for letter of administration under Rule
the petition and directing the hearing on the petition and 79, Section 2 of the Rules of Court include the specific Private respondents’ failure to move for a dismissal
directing that said order be published and copies of the assertion that the petitioner therein is an “interested amounted to a waiver of the abovementioned ground.
same be sent by registered mail or personal delivery to person” Rule 15, Section 8 of the Rules of Court provides that:
each of all known heirs of the deceased.
Ruling: “A motion attacking a pleading or a proceeding shall
The heirs of the deceased opposed the issuance of letters include all objections then available, and all objections not
of administration filed by Gonzales based on the following No. Rule 79, Section 2 of the Rules of Court provides: so included shall be deemed waived.”
grounds:
1. Gonzales is a “complete stranger to the intestate Section 2. Contents of petition of letters of administration By proposing that BonifacioCanonoy be appointed as
estate” of the deceased; – A petition for letters of administration must be files by administrator instead of Mr. Gonzales, private
2. He is not even a creditor of the estate but a an interested person and must show, so far as known to respondents have in fact approved or ratified the filing of
mere employee of an alleged creditor (Shell the petitioner: the petition by the latter. There can be no dispute that the
Philippines, Inc.) and so “he would not be able to trial court had acquired jurisdiction over the case.
properly and effectively protect the interest of a) The jurisdictional facts;
the estate in case of conflicts”; and

Special Proceedings: Rule 79 – Opposing Issuance of Letters Testementary. Petition and Contest for Letters Administration CASE DIGESTS Page 1 of 8
RULE 79 #2 Jose B. Flora and Honorio Santos tried to take the subject It is very clear from this provision that the probate court
vehicles on the ground that they were his personal must cause notice through publication of the petition after
G.R. No. 78590 June 20, 1988 properties. it receives the same. The purpose of this notice is to bring
PEDRO DE GUZMAN, petitioner, all the interested persons within the court's jurisdiction so
The petitioner contends that such order is a patent nullity, that the judgment therein becomes binding on all the
vs. the respondent court not having acquired jurisdiction to world. (Manalo v. Paredes, 47 Phil. 938; Moran, Comment
appoint a special administratrix because the petition for on the Rules of Court Volume 3,1980 Edition) Where no
THE HONORABLE JUDGE ZOSIMO Z. ANGELES, RTC the settlement of the estate of Manolito de Guzman was notice as required by Section 3, Rule 79 of the Rules of
BRANCH 58, MAKATI, METRO, MANILA; DEPUTY not yet set for hearing and published for three consecutive Court has been given to persons believed to have an
SHERIFFS JOSE B. FLORA and HONORIO SANTOS and weeks, as mandated by the Rules of Court. The petitioner interest in the estate of the deceased person; the
ELAINE G. DE GUZMAN, respondents. also stresses that the appointment of a special proceeding for the settlement of the estate is void and
administratrix constitutes an abuse of discretion for having should be annulled. The requirement as to notice is
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: been made without giving petitioner and other parties an essential to the validity of the proceeding in that no person
opportunity to oppose said appointment. may be deprived of his right to property without due
FACTS: ISSUE: process of law.

On May 5, 1987, private respondent Elaine G. de Guzman Whether or not a probate court may appoint a special Verily, notice through publication of the petition for the
filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of administratrix and issue a writ of possession of alleged settlement of the estate of a deceased person is
Manolito de Guzman, before the Regional Trial Court of properties of a decedent for the preservation of the estate jurisdictional, the absence of which makes court orders
Makati, Metro Manila. in a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of affecting other persons, subsequent to the petition void
the said deceased person even before the probate court and subject to annulment. (See Eusebio v. Valmores,
On May 22, 1987, the private respondent filed a motion supra)
for writ of possession over five (5) — vehicles registered causes notice to be served upon all interested parties?
under the name of Manolito de Guzman, alleged to be RULING: NO In the instant case, no notice as mandated by section 3,
conjugal properties of the de Guzman's but which are at Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court was caused to be
present in the possession of the private respondent's In the instant case, there is no doubt that the respondent given by the probate court before it acted on the motions
father-in- law, herein petitioner Pedro de Guzman. The court acquired jurisdiction over the proceedings upon the of the private respondent to be appointed as special
motion stated that as co-owner and heir, the private filing of a petition for the settlement of an intestate administratrix, to issue a writ of possession of alleged
respondent must have the possession of said vehicles in estate by the private respondent since the petition had properties of the deceased person in the widow's favor,
order to preserve the assets of her late husband. On the alleged all the jurisdictional facts, the residence of the and to grant her motion for assistance to preserve the
same day, the lower court issued an order setting for deceased person, the possible heirs and creditors and the estate of Manolito de Guzman.
hearing the motion on May 27, 1987 directing the deputy probable value of the estate of the deceased Manolito de
sheriff to notify petitioner Pedro de Guzman at the Guzman pursuant to Section 2, Rule 79 of the Revised The petitioner as creditor of the estate has a similar
expense of the private respondent. Rules of Court. interest in the preservation of the estate as the private
respondent who happens to be the widow of deceased
On May 28, 1987, the private respondent filed her "Ex- Section 3, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: Manolito de Guzman. Hence, the necessity of notice as
Parte Motion to Appoint Petitioner as Special mandated by the Rules of Court. It is not clear from the
Administratrix of the Estate of Manolito de Guzman” Court to set time for hearing. — Notice thereof. records exactly what emergency would have ensued if the
which was granted by the lower court. Also in another — When a petition for letters of administration appointment of an administrator was deferred at least
order, the lower court acted on the motion for assistance is filed in the court having jurisdiction, such court until the most interested parties were given notice of the
which authorized Deputy Sheriffs Honorio Santos and Jose shall fix a time and place for hearing the petition, proposed action. No unavoidable delay in the appointment
B. Flora together with some military men and/or and shall cause notice thereof to be given to the of a regular administrator is apparent from the records.
policemen to assist private respondent in preserving the known heirs and creditors of the decedent, and
subject estate. to any other persons believed to have an If emergency situations threatening the dissipation of the
interest in the estate, in the manner provided in assets of an estate justify a court's immediately taking
Trouble ensued when the respondents tried to enforce the sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76. some kind of temporary action even without the required
later order. The petitioner resisted when Deputy Sheriffs notice, no such emergency is shown in this case. The need

Special Proceedings: Rule 79 – Opposing Issuance of Letters Testementary. Petition and Contest for Letters Administration CASE DIGESTS Page 2 of 8
for the proper notice even for the appointment of a Issue: October 15, 1971, Merry Lee, an American citizen, filed a
special administrator is apparent from the circumstances Complaint for Divorce before the Family Court of the First
of this case. w/n petitioner is "an interested person" in the estate of Circuit, State of Hawaii, which issued a Decree Granting
deceased Maria V. Lindayag? Absolute Divorce and Awarding Child Custody on
The respondent Judge himself explains that the order for December 14, 1973. On June 20, 1974, Felicisimo married
the preservation of the estate was limited to properties Held: Felicidad San Luis, then surnamed Sagalongos. He had no
not claimed by third parties. If certain properties are children with Felicidad but lived with her for 18 years from
It is manifested from the facts that Petitioner is not an
already in the possession of the applicant for special the time of their marriage up to his death on December
heir of her deceased sister and, therefore, has no material
administratrix and are not claimed by other persons, we 18, 1992. Upon death of his dad, Rodolfo sought the
and direct interest in her estate. According to Section 2,
see no need to hurry up and take special action to dissolution of their Felicisimo’s conjugal partnership assets
Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, a petition for letters of and the settlement of Felicisimo’s estate. On December
preserve those properties. As it is, the sheriffs took administration must be filed by an "interested person". An
advantage of the questioned order to seize by force, 17, 1993, Felicidad filed a petition for letters of
interested party is defined in this connection as one who administration before the Regional Trial Court of Makati
properties found in the residence of the petitioner which would be benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one City. Rodolfo claimed that Felicidad has no legal
he vehemently claims are owned by him and not by the who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor personality to file the petition because she was only a
estate of the deceased person. (Intestate Estate of Julio Magbanwa, 40 O.G. 1171). And it mistress of Felicisimo since the latter, at the time of his
RULE 79 #3 is well settled in this jurisdiction that in civil actions as well death, was still legally married to Merry Lee. Felicidad
as special proceedings, the interest required in order that presented the decree of absolute divorce issued by the
GR. No. L-17759 December 17, 1962 a person may be a party thereto must be material and Family Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii to prove
direct, and not merely indirect. Petitioner's interest in the that the marriage of Felicisimo to Merry Lee had already
ISABEL V. SAGUINSIN, vs. DIONISIO LINDAYAG, ET AL estate of the deceased Maria V. Lindayag was disputed, been dissolved. Thus, she claimed that Felicisimo had the
through a motion to dismiss her petition, by the surviving legal capacity to marry her by virtue of paragraph 2 Article
DIZON, J. 26 of the Family Code.
spouse on the ground that said deceased was survived by
Facts: him and by three legally adopted children — thus Rodolfo asserted that paragraph 2, Article 26 of the Family
excluding petitioner as an heir. In the course of the Code cannot be given retroactive effect to validate
Maria V. Lindayag died intestate in Olongapo, Zambales. hearing held in connection with said motion, evidence was Felicidad’s bigamous marriage with Felicisimo because this
Her sister, Isabel V. Saguinsin filed with the Court of First introduced in support thereof which, according to the would impair vested rights in derogation of Article 256.
Instance of said province a verified petition for the lower court, established that said deceased was survived
issuance in her favor of letters of administration over the ISSUE: Whether or not Felicidad may file for letters of
not only by her husband but by three legally adopted administration over Felicisimo’s estate.
estate of the deceased. Dionisio V. Lindayag, the surviving children named Jesus, Concepcion, and Catherine, all
spouse, and in representation of the minors Jesus, surnamed Lindayag. HELD: The divorce decree allegedly obtained by Merry Lee
Concepcion, and Catherine, all surnamed Lindayag, filed a which absolutely allowed Felicisimo to remarry, would
motion to dismiss the petition on the ground of lack of RULE 79 #4 have vested Felicidad with the legal personality to file the
interest in the estate, she being neither heir nor a creditor present petition as Felicisimo’s surviving spouse. However,
San Luis Vs. San Luis
thereof. The motion alleged that the late Maria V. the records show that there is insufficient evidence to
Lindayag was survived by her husband — the movant — G.R. No. 133743 February 6, 2007 prove the validity of the divorce obtained by Merry Lee as
and their legally adopted minor children named Jesus, well as the marriage of Felicidad and Felicisimo under the
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: laws of the U.S.A. In Garcia v. Recio, the Court laid down
Concepcion, and Catherine. In opposing the motion to
dismiss, petitioner argued that only the facts alleged in the the specific guidelines for pleading and proving foreign law
and divorce judgments. It held that presentation solely of
petition should be considered in determining its
During his lifetime, Felicisimo San Luis (Rodolfo San Luis’s the divorce decree is insufficient and that proof of its
sufficiency. After hearing on the motion, the Court issued
dad) contracted three marriages. His first marriage was authenticity and due execution must be presented. Under
the order of dismissal: that the herein petitioner is with Virginia Sulit on March 17, 1942 out of which were Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, a writing or document may
obviously not an heir and has no interest in estate; and born six children. On August 11, 1963, Virginia be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country
that the surviving heirs oppose the instant petition on the predeceased Felicisimo. by either (1) an official publication or (2) a copy thereof
ground that they want to settle the estate extra-judicially attested by the officer having legal custody of the
among them to avoid unnecessary expenses in prosecuting Five years later, on May 1, 1968, Felicisimo married Merry document. If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such
the case. Lee Corwin, with whom he had a son, Tobias. However, on copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by

Special Proceedings: Rule 79 – Opposing Issuance of Letters Testementary. Petition and Contest for Letters Administration CASE DIGESTS Page 3 of 8
the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine 144 76 of the Civil Code. This provision governs the contained in his petition. Shortly after the probate of his
foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which property relations between parties who live together as will, Dr. De Santos died on February 26, 1996.
the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, or
office. their marriage is void from the beginning. It provides that • On April 3, 1996, PETITIONER OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II
the property acquired by either or both of them through
With regard to Felicidad’s marriage to Felicisimo allegedly filed a motion for intervention claiming that, as the only
their work or industry or their wages and salaries shall be child of Alicia de Santos (testator's sister) and Octavio L.
solemnized in California, U.S.A., she submitted governed by the rules on co-ownership. In a co-
photocopies of the Marriage Certificate and the annotated Maloles, Sr., he was the sole full-blooded nephew and
ownership, it is not necessary that the property be nearest of kin of Dr. De Santos. He likewise alleged that he
text of the Family Law Act of California which purportedly acquired through their joint labor, efforts and industry.
show that their marriage was done in accordance with the was a creditor of the testator. PETITIONER thus prayed for
Any property acquired during the union is prima the reconsideration of the order allowing the will and the
said law. As stated in Garcia, however, the Court cannot facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint
take judicial notice of foreign laws as they must be alleged issuance of letters of administration in his name.
efforts. Hence, the portions belonging to the co-owners
and proved. shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proven. 77
The case should be remanded to the trial court for further • On the other hand, PRIVATE RESPONDENT PACITA DE
reception of evidence on the divorce decree obtained by LOS REYES PHILLIPS, the designated executrix of the will,
Merry Lee and the marriage of respondent and Felicisimo. In view of the foregoing, we find that respondent’s legal filed a motion for the issuance of letters testamentary with
capacity to file the subject petition for letters of Branch 61, but later moved to withdraw her motion, which
administration may arise from her status as the surviving was granted. Afterwhich, private respondent refiled a
wife of Felicisimo or as his co-owner under Article 144 of petition for the same purpose with the RTC.
Even assuming that Felicisimo was not capacitated to
marry respondent in 1974, nevertheless, we find that the the Civil Code or Article 148 of the Family Code.
latter has the legal personality to file the subject petition • JUDGE SALVADOR ABAD SANTOs of Branch 65 issued an
CASE DIGEST 5: RULE 79 - OPPOSING ISSUANCE OF order, appointing private respondent as special
for letters of administration, as she may be considered LETTERS TESTAMENTARY. PETITION AND CONTEST FOR
the co-owner of Felicisimo as regards the properties that administrator of Dr. De Santos's estate. PETITIONER
LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION sought to intervene and to set aside the appointment of
were acquired through their joint efforts during their
cohabitation. private respondent as special administrator. He reiterated
OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II vs. PACITA DE LOS REYES that he was the sole and full blooded nephew and nearest
Section 6, 74 Rule 78 of the Rules of Court states that PHILLIPS, G.R. No. 129505, January 31, 2000, MENDOZA, of kin of the testator; that he came to know of the
letters of administration may be granted to the surviving J.: existence of Sp. Proc. No. M-4343 only by accident; that
spouse of the decedent. However, Section 2, Rule 79 the probate proceedings in Sp. Proc. No. M-4223 before
thereof also provides in part: Branch 61 of the same court was still pending; that private
FACTS OF THE CASE: respondent misdeclared the true worth of the testator's
SEC. 2. Contents of petition for letters of administration. –
estate; that private respondent was not fit to be the
A petition for letters of administration must be filed by
• DR. ARTURO DE SANTOS, Filipino and a resident of special administrator of the estate; and that PETITIONER
an interested person and must show, as far as known to
Makati City, filed a petition for probate of his will in the should be given letters of administration for the estate of
the petitioner: x x x.
Regional Trial Court, Branch, Makati, alleging that he had Dr. De Santos.
An “interested person” has been defined as one who no compulsory heirs; that he had named in his will as sole
would be benefited by the estate, such as an heir, or one legatee and devisee the Arturo de Santos Foundation, Inc.; • On November 4, 1996, JUDGE ABAD SANTOS granted
who has a claim against the estate, such as a creditor. that he disposed by his will his properties with an petitioner's motion for intervention. PRIVATE
The interest must be material and direct, and not merely approximate value of not less than P2,000,000.00; and RESPONDENT moved for a reconsideration but her motion
indirect or contingent. 75 that COPIES OF SAID WILL were in the custody of the was denied by the trial court. The COURT OF APPEALS set
named executrix, private respondent Pacita de los Reyes aside the trial court's order on the ground that petitioner
In the instant case, respondent would qualify as an
interested person who has a direct interest in the estate Phillips. A COPY OF THE WILL was annexed to the petition had not shown any right or interest to intervene in Sp.
for probate. Proc. No. M-4343.
of Felicisimo by virtue of their cohabitation, the existence
of which was not denied by petitioners. If she proves the
validity of the divorce and Felicisimo’s capacity to • RTC issued an order granting the petition and allowing • Petitioner claims the right to intervene in and oppose
remarry, but fails to prove that her marriage with him the will. The COURT found that the PETITIONER has the petition for issuance of letters testamentary filed by
was validly performed under the laws of the U.S.A., then substantially established the material allegations private respondent. He argues that, as the nearest next of
she may be considered as a co-owner under Article

Special Proceedings: Rule 79 – Opposing Issuance of Letters Testementary. Petition and Contest for Letters Administration CASE DIGESTS Page 4 of 8
kin and creditor of the testator, his interest in the matter is OF HIS EXECUTOR is a precious prerogative of a testator, a 241 was instituted and Lilia Hofileña was appointed as
material and direct. necessary concomitant of his right to dispose of his special administrator of the estate of the deceased.
property in the manner he wishes. It is natural that the PETITIONER moved to reconsider the order appointing Lilia
testator should desire to appoint one of his confidence, Hofileña as special administrator with prayer that letters
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner, being a creditor of one who can be trusted to carry out his wishes in the of administration be issued to him instead.
the late Dr. Arturo de Santos, has a right to intervene and disposal of his estate. The CURTAILMENT OF THIS RIGHT
oppose the petition for issuance of letters testamentary may be considered a curtailment of the right to dispose.
filed by the respondent. NO • JUDGE RAMON B. POSADAS revoked Lilia Hofileña’s
(CITED IN THE BOOK OF FESTIN, PAGE 78) appointment as special administrator and denied her
petition to be appointed as regular administrator.
RULING: • Only if the APPOINTED EXECUTOR is incompetent, Meanwhile, LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION were granted
• RULE 79, SECTION 1 provides: OPPOSITION TO ISSUANCE refuses the trust, or fails to give bond may the COURT to petitioner, who took his oath of office as administrator
OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY. SIMULTANEOUS PETITION appoint other persons to administer the estate. None of on June 23, 1998.
FOR ADMINISTRATION. — ANY PERSON INTERESTED IN A these circumstances is present in this case.
WILL may state in writing the grounds why letters • On February 17, 1999, JOHNNY K. H. UY (PRIVATE
testamentary should not issue to the persons named • Hence, the PRIVATE RESPONDENT herein is not an heir RESPONDENT) filed a motion to intervene, praying that he
therein as executors, or any of them, and the COURT, after or legatee under the will of the decedent Arturo de be appointed as administrator of the estate in lieu of
hearing upon notice, shall pass upon the sufficiency of Santos. Neither is he a compulsory heir of the latter. As petitioner. He alleged that he is the brother and a creditor
such grounds. A PETITION may, at the SAME TIME, be filed the ONLY AND NEAREST COLLATERAL RELATIVE OF THE of the deceased, and has knowledge of the properties that
for letters of administration with the will annexed. DECEDENT, he can inherit from the latter only in case of should be included in the estate.
intestacy. Since the DECEDENT HAS LEFT A WILL which has
• ***Under this provision, it has been held that an already been probated and disposes of all his properties
• The TRIAL COURT initially denied private respondent’s
"INTERESTED PERSON" is one who would be benefited by the private respondent can inherit only if the said will is motion to intervene, but on March 16, 2000, it
the estate, such as an heir, or one who has a claim against annulled. His INTEREST IN THE DECEDENT'S ESTATE is,
reconsidered its earlier order and appointed private
the estate, such as a creditor, and whose interest is therefore, not direct or immediate. respondent as co-administrator of the estate. Petitioner’s
material and direct, not merely incidental or contingent. motion for reconsideration was denied. The TRIAL COURT
CASE DIGEST 6: RULE 79 - OPPOSING ISSUANCE OF found that private respondent substantially complied with
• ***Even if PETITIONER IS THE NEAREST NEXT OF KIN OF LETTERS TESTAMENTARY. PETITION AND CONTEST FOR the order directing him to bring into the estate properties
DR. DE SANTOS, he cannot be considered an "heir" of the LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION owned by or registered in the name of the deceased not
testator. It is a fundamental rule of testamentary subject of any adverse claim or controversy when he listed
succession that ONE WHO HAS NO COMPULSORY OR the alleged properties suspected to be concealed,
WILSON S. UY, as Judicial Administrator of the Intestate embezzled or conveyed away by the persons named
FORCED HEIRS may dispose of his entire estate by will.
Estate of the Deceased JOSE K. C. UY vs. THE HON. COURT therein. Thus, it found no cogent reason to remove private
Thus, ART. 842 OF THE CIVIL CODE provides: One who has
OF APPEALS, HON. ANASTACIO C. RUFON, As Presiding respondent as co-administrator. CA affirmed the decision
NO COMPULSORY HEIRS may dispose by will of all his
Judge of Branch 52, of the Regional Trial Court, Sixth of the RTC.
estate or any part of it in favor of any person having
Judicial Region, sitting at Bacolod City, and JOHNNY K. H.
capacity to succeed. One who HAS COMPULSORY HEIRS
UY, G.R. No. 167979, March 15, 2006, YNARES-
may dispose of his estate provided he does not contravene • PETITIONER asserts that his appointment as a regular
SANTIAGO, J.:
the provisions of this Code with regard to the legitimate of administrator is already final, unassailable or res judicata;
said heirs. that the INFERIOR COURT has no authority to re-open the
FACTS OF THE CASE: issue of the appointment of an administrator without
• PETITIONER, AS NEPHEW OF THE TESTATOR, is not a removing the incumbent administrator; that PRIVATE
compulsory heir who may have been preterited in the RESPONDENT is not only alien to the estate, but has a
• JOSE K.C. UY (Deceased) died intestate on August 20, conflict of interest with it; that the trial court’s
testator's will. Nor does he have any right to intervene in 1996 and is survived by his spouse, Sy Iok Ing Uy, and his
the settlement proceedings based on his allegation that he appointment of private respondent as co-administrator
five children, namely, Lilian S. Uy, Lilly S. Uy, Livian S. Uy- constitutes grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack
is a creditor of the deceased. Since the TESTATOR Garcia , Lilen S. Uy and WILSON S. UY (PETITIONER).
INSTITUTED OR NAMED AN EXECUTOR IN HIS WILL, it is of jurisdiction.
incumbent upon the Court to respect the desires of the
testator. As we stated in Ozaeta v. Pecson: ***The CHOICE • On February 18, 1997, SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. 97-

Special Proceedings: Rule 79 – Opposing Issuance of Letters Testementary. Petition and Contest for Letters Administration CASE DIGESTS Page 5 of 8
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court acted with grave In Gabriel v. Court of Appeals, this Court reaffirmed that
abuse of discretion in appointing private respondent as co- jurisprudence allows the APPOINTMENT OF CO- • On 7 September 2000, ISMAEL TAYAG died intestate,
administrator to the estate of the deceased. NO ADMINISTRATORS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, to leaving behind two (2) real properties both of which are in
wit: Under both Philippine and American jurisprudence, the possession of petitioner, and a motor vehicle which
the appointment of co-administrators has been upheld for the latter sold on 10 October 2000 preparatory to the
RULING: various reasons, viz: (1) to have the benefit of their settlement of the decedent’s estate. PETITIONER allegedly
• The MAIN FUNCTION OF A PROBATE COURT is to settle judgment and perhaps at all times to have different promised to give respondent and her brothers
and liquidate the estates of deceased persons either interests represented; (2) where justice and equity ₱100,000.00 each as their share in the proceeds of the
summarily or through the process of administration. In the demand that opposing parties or factions be represented sale. However, petitioner only gave each of them half the
case at bar, the TRIAL COURT granted letters of in the management of the estate of the deceased; (3) amount she promised.
administration to petitioner and thereafter to private where the estate is large or, from any cause, an intricate
respondent as co-administrator. and perplexing one to settle; (4) to have all interested
• RESPONDENT further averred that on 20 November
persons satisfied and the representatives to work in 2000, petitioner has caused the annotation of 5
• Under SECTION 6, RULE 78 OF THE RULES OF COURT, the harmony for the best interests of the estate; and (5) when
September 1984 affidavit executed by Ismael Tayag
preference to whom letters of administration may be a person entitled to the administration of an estate desires declaring the properties to be the paraphernal properties
granted are as follows: SEC. 6. WHEN AND TO WHOM to have another competent person associated with him in
of petitioner. The LATTER allegedly intends to dispose of
LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION GRANTED. – If no executor the office. these properties to the respondent’s and her brothers’
is named in the will, or the executor or executors are prejudice.
incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a • Thus, petitioner’s argument that the trial court cannot
person dies intestate, ADMINISTRATION SHALL BE re-open the issue of the appointment of an administrator
GRANTED: (a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case • PETITIONER opposed the petition, asserting that she
without removing the incumbent administrator is purchased the properties subject of the petition using her
may be, or next of kin, or both, in the discretion of the erroneous. In PROBATE PROCEEDINGS, considerable
court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, own money. She claimed that she and Ismael Tayag got
latitude is allowed a probate court in modifying or married in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA on 25 October 1973,
or next of kin, requests to have appointed, if competent revoking its own orders as long as the proceedings are
and willing to serve; (b) If such surviving husband or wife, and that they have an adopted daughter, Carmela Tayag,
pending in the same court and timely applications or who is presently residing in the USA. It is allegedly not true
as the case may be, or next of kin, or the person selected motions for such modifications or revocations are made by
by them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or that she is planning to sell the properties. PETITIONER
the interested parties. In the instant case, the ESTATE OF prayed for the dismissal of the suit because respondent
widow, or next of kin, neglects for thirty (30) days after the THE DECEASED has not yet been settled and the case is still
death of the person to apply for administration or to failed to state a cause of action.
within the jurisdiction of the court.
request that administration be granted to some other
person, it may be granted to one or more of the principal • In a Motion, PETITIONER reiterated her sole ownership
creditors, if competent and willing to serve; (c) If there is CASE DIGEST 7: RULE 79 - OPPOSING ISSUANCE OF of the properties and presented the transfer certificates of
no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be LETTERS TESTAMENTARY. PETITION AND CONTEST FOR title thereof in her name. She also averred that it is
granted to such other person as the court may select. LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION necessary to allege that respondent was acknowledged
VICTORIA C. TAYAG vs. FELICIDAD A. TAYAG-GALLOR, and recognized by Ismael Tayag as his illegitimate child.
G.R. No. 174680, March 24, 2008, TINGA, J.: There being no such allegation, the action becomes one to
• ***In the instant case, the ORDER OF PREFERENCE was
not disregarded by the trial court. Instead of removing compel recognition which cannot be brought after the
death of the putative father.
petitioner, IT APPOINTED PRIVATE RESPONDENT, a
CREDITOR, as co-administrator since the estate was FACTS OF THE CASE:
sizeable and petitioner was having a difficult time • The Court denied the petition, which was affirmed by the
attending to it alone. In fact, PETITIONER did not submit • RESPONDENT FELICIDAD A. TAYAG-GALLOR filed a Court of Appeals. CA ruled, in essence, that the
any report regarding the estate under his administration. petition for the issuance of letters of administration over ALLEGATION THAT RESPONDENT IS AN ILLEGITIMATE
the estate of Ismael Tayag. RESPONDENT alleged that she CHILD suffices for a cause of action, without need to state
is one of the three (3) illegitimate children of the late that she had been recognized and acknowledged as such.
• ***A CO-ADMINISTRATOR performs all the functions and
duties and exercises all the powers of a regular Ismael Tayag and Ester C. Angeles. The DECEDENT was However, RESPONDENT still has to prove her allegation
married to petitioner herein, Victoria C. Tayag, but the two and, correspondingly, petitioner has the right to refute the
administrator, only that he is not alone in the
administration. The PRACTICE OF APPOINTING CO- allegedly did not have any children of their own. allegation in the course of the settlement proceedings.
ADMINISTRATORS in estate proceedings is not prohibited.

Special Proceedings: Rule 79 – Opposing Issuance of Letters Testementary. Petition and Contest for Letters Administration CASE DIGESTS Page 6 of 8
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent’s petition for the
issuance of letters of administration sufficiently states a • We find, therefore, that the ALLEGATION THAT • On February 4, 2005, RICARDO SILVERIO JR. filed an
cause of action considering that respondent merely RESPONDENT IS AN ILLEGITIMATE CHILD OF THE Urgent Motion for an Order Prohibiting Any Person to
alleged therein that she is an illegitimate child of the DECEDENT suffices even without further stating that she Occupy/Stay/Use Real Estate Properties Involved in the
decedent, without stating that she had been has been so recognized or acknowledged. A MOTION TO Intestate Estate of the Late Beatriz Silverio, Without
acknowledged or recognized as such by the latter. YES DISMISS ON THE GROUND OF FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE Authority from this Honorable Court. RTC then issued an
OF ACTION in the complaint hypothetically admits the Omnibus Order affirming its Order dated January 3, 2005
truth of the facts alleged therein. Assuming the fact and denying private respondent’s motion for
RULING: alleged to be true, i.e., that RESPONDENT IS THE reconsideration. In the Omnibus Order, the RTC also
• ***RULE 79 OF THE RULES OF COURT provides that a DECEDENT’S ILLEGITIMATE CHILD, her interest in the authorized Ricardo Silverio, Jr. to, upon receipt of the
PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF estate as such would definitely be material and direct. The order, immediately exercise his duties as administrator of
ADMINISTRATION must be filed by an interested person. In APPELLATE COURT was, therefore, correct in allowing the the subject estate. The Omnibus Order also directed Nelia
Saguinsin v. Lindayag, the Court defined an INTERESTED proceedings to continue, ruling that, "RESPONDENT still S. Silverio-Dee to vacate the property at No. 3, Intsia,
PARTY as one who would be benefited by the estate, such has the duty to prove the allegation (that she is an Forbes Park, Makati City within fifteen (15) days from
as an heir, or one who has a claim against the estate, such illegitimate child of the decedent), just as the PETITIONER receipt of the order. Notably, the RTC also recalled its
as a creditor. This INTEREST, furthermore, must be has the right to disprove it, in the course of the settlement previous order granting Ricardo Silverio, Jr. with letters of
material and direct, not merely indirect or contingent. proceedings." administration over the intestate estate of Beatriz Silverio
and reinstating Ricardo Silverio, Sr. as the administrator.
• ***Hence, where the RIGHT OF THE PERSON FILING A
CASE DIGEST 8: RULE 79 - OPPOSING ISSUANCE OF
PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF • RICARDO SILVERIO, JR. filed a motion for reconsideration
LETTERS TESTAMENTARY. PETITION AND CONTEST FOR
ADMINISTRATION is dependent on a fact which has not which was denied by the RTC. In the same order, the RTC
LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION
been established or worse, can no longer be established, also allowed the sale of various properties of the intestate
SUCH CONTINGENT INTEREST does not make her an estate of the late Beatriz Silverio to partially settle estate
interested party. Here lies the complication in the case RICARDO S. SILVERIO, JR, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (Fifth taxes, penalties, interests and other charges due thereon.
which the appellate court had not discussed, although its Division) and NELIA S. SILVERIO-DEE, G.R. No. 178933, Among the properties authorized to be sold was the one
disposition of the case is correct. September 16, 2009, VELASCO, JR., J.: located at No. 3 Intsia Road, Forbes Park, Makati City.

• Essentially, the PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF LETTERS FACTS OF THE CASE: • On May 31, 2005, the RTC issued an Omnibus Order
OF ADMINISTRATION is a suit for the settlement of the • The instant controversy stemmed from the settlement of ordering Nelia Silverio-Dee to vacate the premises of the
intestate estate of Ismael Tayag. The RIGHT OF estate of the deceased Beatriz Silverio. After her death, property located at No. 3, Intsia Road, Forbes Park, Makati
RESPONDENT TO MAINTAIN SUCH A SUIT is dependent on her SURVIVING SPOUSE, RICARDO SILVERIO, SR., filed an City. She received a copy of the said Order on June 8,
whether she is entitled to successional rights as an intestate proceeding for the settlement of her estate. 2005. Instead of filing a Notice of Appeal and Record on
illegitimate child of the decedent which, in turn, may be Appeal, PRIVATE RESPONDENT filed a motion for
established through voluntary or compulsory recognition. reconsideration of the Order. This motion for
• DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE CASE, RICARDO reconsideration was denied in an Order dated December
SILVERIO, JR. filed a petition to remove Ricardo C. Silverio, 12, 2005. This ORDER was received by private respondent
• RESPONDENT in this case had not been given the Sr. as the administrator of the subject estate. On
opportunity to present evidence to show whether she had on December 22, 2005. On January 6, 2006, PRIVATE
November 22, 2004, EDMUNDO S. SILVERIO also filed a RESPONDENT filed her Notice of Appeal while she filed her
been voluntarily recognized and acknowledged by her comment/opposition for the removal of Ricardo C.
deceased father because of petitioner’s opposition to her Record on Appeal on January 23, 2006.
Silverio, Sr. as administrator of the estate and for the
petition and motion for hearing on affirmative defenses. appointment of a new administrator.
There is, as yet, no way to determine if her petition is
ISSUE: Whether or not the Omnibus Order dated May 31,
actually one to compel recognition which had already
been foreclosed by the death of her father, or whether • The RTC issued an Order granting the petition and 2005 is an interlocutory order. YES
indeed she has a material and direct interest to maintain removing Ricardo Silverio, Sr. as administrator of the
the suit by reason of the decedent’s voluntary estate, while appointing Ricardo Silverio, Jr. as the new
administrator. On January 26, 2005, NELIA S. SILVERIO-DEE RULING:
acknowledgment or recognition of her illegitimate filiation. • The SUBJECT PROPERTY is part of an estate and subject
filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated
January 3, 2005, as well as all other related orders. to intestate proceedings before the courts. It is, thus,

Special Proceedings: Rule 79 – Opposing Issuance of Letters Testementary. Petition and Contest for Letters Administration CASE DIGESTS Page 7 of 8
relevant to note that in RULE 84, SEC. 2 OF THE RULES OF
COURT, the ADMINISTRATOR may only deliver properties
of the estate to the heirs upon order of the Court.
Similarly, under RULE 90, SEC. 1 OF THE RULES OF COURT,
the PROPERTIES OF THE ESTATE SHALL ONLY BE
DISTRIBUTED after the payment of the debts, funeral
charges, and other expenses against the estate, EXCEPT
when authorized by the Court.

• Verily, once an ACTION FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF AN

ESTATE IS FILED WITH THE COURT, the properties included
therein are under the control of the intestate court. And
NOT EVEN THE ADMINISTRATOR may take possession of
any property that is part of the estate without the prior
authority of the Court.

• In the instant case, the PURPORTED AUTHORITY OF

NELIA SILVERIO-DEE, which she allegedly secured from
Ricardo Silverio, Sr., was never approved by the probate
court. She, therefore, never had any real interest in the
specific property located at No. 3 Intsia Road, Forbes Park,
Makati City. As such, the MAY 31, 2005 ORDER OF THE RTC
must be considered as interlocutory and, therefore, not
subject to an appeal.

• Thus, PRIVATE RESPONDENT employed the wrong mode

of appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal with the RTC. Hence,
for employing the improper mode of appeal, the case
should have been dismissed.
NOTE: The ruling of the case discussed only about Rule 84
and 90 of the Rules of Court; No discussion related to
Rule 79 (the case is listed under said rule)

Special Proceedings: Rule 79 – Opposing Issuance of Letters Testementary. Petition and Contest for Letters Administration CASE DIGESTS Page 8 of 8