OZAETA VS.

PECSON
FACTS:
Carlos Palanca died leaving a will, he appointed petitioner Ozaeta, a former associate justice of SC, aclose friend of
his wife and sponsor to their marriage, as his executor should Gen. Roxas fails to qualify. Since Gen. Roxas already
died, Ozaeta petitioned 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 in
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:
Whether or not the probate court committed grave abuse of discretion when it appointed special administrator other
than the name executor, while pending appeal.
HELD:
Court ruled in favor of Ozaeta and held that, 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 one of
his confidant whom he can trust to carry out his wishes, the appointment and issuance of letters must be made as
soon as practicable.
In the case at bar, since the 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.