You are on page 1of 1

OZAETA VS.

PECSON FACTS: Carlos Palanca died leaving a will, appointing petitioner Ozaeta, being a former associate justice of SC,a close friend of his wife and sponsor to their marriage, as his executor should Gen. Roxas fails to qualify Since Gen. Roxas already died, Ozaeta petition the court for the probate of the will of Carlos and pray he be appointed as special administrator. The will was allowed, but some of the heirs opposed. Thus pending appeal, the court appointed Phil. Trust Bank as special administrator but later on it withdrew on ground of incompatibility of interest. Petitioner Ozaeta reiterate his appointment as special administrator but the court refused and instead appoint 1 of the heirs and the BPI. Petitioner then filed the present petition. ISSUE: w/n probate court committed grave abuse of discretion when it appointed special administrator other than the name executor, while pending appeal. HELD: Court Favor Ozaeta and held that 1. While the rule grant discretion to the probate court to appoint or not a special administrator and the choice of person lies within its power, SUCH DISCRETION should not be whimsical and partial but one that is reasonable, logical and in accordance with the fundamental legal principle of justice.A probate court cannot make a personal likes and dislikes prevail over his judgment Since the choice of executor is a precious prerogative of testator according to his desire to appoint 1 of his confidence who can he trust 2 carry out his wishes, the appointment and issuance of letters must be made as soon as practicable In the case at bar, since will has already been admitted to probate and the only reason for suspending petitioners appointment as executor and instead appoint special administrator is a technical one, unreasonable and would further delay the disposition causing unnecessary expense.

HELD: SC found the actions of respondent judge cannot be supported with 1. While the probate of the will was denied, the order to this effect is not yet final and executory. Matias being universal heiress and executrix still has special interest to protect. 2. While generally, there should only be 1 special administrator maybe appointed, probate court in its discretion, when it deems best, and whenever there are at least two factions among heirs, may appoint more than 1 special administrator or a special co-adminstrator but to administer the whole single estate exercising jointly powers of administration temporaily and not independently. 3. On technical side, there was late notice of hearing for the removal of Rodriguez as special administrator, and lack of notice that Basilia and Victorina be appointed as special administrator while in their motion, it only seek removal of Rodriguez and appointment of Plata. ROXAS VS. PECSON FACTS: -Pablo Roxas died, thus his sister and brother, maria and pedro the respondents herein filed petition for intestate proceeding and be appointed as administrator.But later on dismissed, as petitioner Natividad roxas, the surving spouse filed petition for probate of the last will where she was named as executrix and half of the property bequethed to her and the other half to pablo s adulterous child. Later on, the will was denied probate technically for lack of signatures. Petitioner spouse appealed and pray she be appointed as special administrator. So Maria and Pedro petitioned the court to be appointed as special administrators. The judge ordered the appointment of Natividad as special administartor but only for the conjugal property of the deceased and appoint at the same time Maria to administer the exclusive property of the deceased. Hence this petition by the surviving spouse ISSUE: w/n judge committed grave abuse of discretion in appointing 2 separate special adminstrator of the decedent. HELD: SC held in the affirmative. The judge erred in appointing 2 independent special administrators 1. It finds no reason to do so especially if the estate to be settled is that of the deceased husband a. Since marriage is dissolved upon death of the husband or wife, it follows then that that the community property shall be inventoried, administered and liquidated, and the person to do this shall also be the one to administer, Distribute and liquidate the exclusive property of the deceased spouse b. The widow, who still has a beneficial interest even after the will was diapproved since pending appeal, has the right of usufruct over the of the exclusive property of decedent besides her share in the conjugal partnership. And has more interest in the entire estate correctly c. The beneficial interest required as qualification for appointment of administrator is the interest in the whole estate and not only in some part thereof d. Lastly, Since under the law, only one general administrator may be appointed to administer, liquidate and distribute estate of the deceased, it follows then that only 1 special administrator maybe appointed in lieu of the former until question causing delay are decided.

2.

3.

MATIAS VS. GONZALES FACTS: Aurea Matias, being the universal heiress and named executrix in the purported will of her Aunt Gabina Raquel who died single, instituted probate proceeding. However, Basilia, cousin of the deceased and was over 80 y/o, totally blind opposed its probate and pray for the appointment of her niece Victorina, a pharmacist, as special administrator. Opposition was sustained by the lower court. So Matias appealed, and while pending appeal, it was Horacio Rodriguez, a practicing lawyer, former prosecutor and Mayor of Cavite was appointed special administrator. Basilia the cousin again opposed and insist his removal and pray that special administration be issued to Ramon Plata. The Lower court under the respondent judge granted the opposition and appoint Basilia, Victorina, and Ramon Plata as special administrator and remove Horacio. Matias questioned the order and inisist that PNB or BPI be appointed should the court refused her qualification, but was denied. Later on, due to inability to perform duties, Basilia withrew. Hence this petition by Matias against the judge, Victorina and Plata. ISSUE: w/n judge committed grave abuse of discretion for not appointing the named executrix and the propriety of appointing more than 1 special administratrix.

You might also like