Special Proceedings CASES

1. Tan vs Gedorio Facts: Upon the death of Gerardo Tan on Oct. 14, 2000, private respondents Rogelo Lim S ga and !elen Tan Racoma, "ho "ere claiming to #e the children of the decedent moved for the appointment of their attorne$%in%fact, Rom aldo Lim as special administrator. This "as opposed #$ the petitioner &ilma Tan, 'a(e Tan and Geraldine Tan, claiming that none of the respondents can #e appointed since the$ are not residing in the co ntr$, that Rom aldo does not have the same competence as &ilma Tan "ho "as alread$ acting as the de facto administratri) of the estate, and that the nearest of (in, #eing the legitmate children, is preferred in the choice of administrator *claiming that the respondent "ere illegitmate children+. !o"ever, pon fail re of &ilma to follo" a co rt directive to acco nt for the income of the estate, the co rt granted Rom aldo,s appointment as special administrator. -etitioners appealed to the .o rt of /ppeals and "as denied, hence the petition for revie" on certiorari. Issue: 0hether or not the co rt violated Sec. 1, R le 23 of the R les of .o rt in their selection of a special administrator. Ruling: The preference nder Section 1, R le 23 of the R les of .o rt for the ne)t of (in refers to the appointment of a reg lar administrator, and not of a special administrator, as the appointment of the latter lies entirel$ in the discretion of the co rt, and is not appeala#le. 4f petitioners reall$ desire to avail themselves of the order of preference , the$ sho ld p rs e the appointment of a reg lar administrator and p t to an end the dela$ "hich necessitated the appointment of a special administrator. Comment: The co rt "as correct in granting the appointment of Rom aldo as special administrator since it "as sho"n that &ilma "as in remiss after failing to follo" the series of directives and e)tension given to her to acco nt for the estate. 2. Co vs Rosario Facts: -etitioner L is .o and &icente 5 "ere appointed #$ the Regional Trial .o rt of 6a(ati on 6arch 4, 1773, as special co%administrators of the estate of petitioner,s father. !o"ever, pon motion of other heirs, petitioner,s appointment "as set aside, "here#$ petitioner nominated his son, /lvin .o, in his place, "hich "as granted #$ the co rt. 8o r $ears later, ho"ever, the RT., pon motion of one the heirs, revo(ed the appointment of /lvin in vie" of the several criminal cases filed against the latter. -etitioner files petition for revie" on certiorari nder R le 49.

2.o# as special co%administrator.o rt r led "isel$ #eca se in s ch state. 2. that the trial co rt has . Ruling: The trial co rt did not act "ith grave a# se of discretion in revo(ing /lvin:s appointment as special co%administrator. 2002. dgment . .ect to its s pervision and control and "ho is e)pected to "or( for the #est interest of the entire estate. /lvin "ill #e too occ pied defending himself from the n mero s criminal case file against him to the detriment of his . erred in r ling that a contingent mone$ claim against the estate of a decedent is an initiator$ pleading. no certification for non%for m shopping "as attached. of non%for m shoping.o rts ma$ appoint or remove special administrators #ased on gro nds other than those en merated in the R les. .s commission in the total amo nt of -431. Issue: 0hether or not the co rt erred in dismissing the mone$ claim for fail re to pa$ the doc(et fee.Issue: 0hether or not the co rt erred in revo(ing /lvin . Settled is the r le that the selection or removal of special administrators is not governed #$ the r les regarding the selection or removal of reg lar administrators. 3. a contingent claim for agent. /nd also. attach a cert. especiall$ "ith respect to its smooth administration and earliest settlement. The special administrator is an officer of the co rt "ho is s #. risdiction to act on a mone$ claim *attorne$. The RT. Ruling: The co rt erred in strictl$ appl$ing Sec. R le 22 of the R les of .o rt r led in -asc al v. the prolonged litigation on the simple iss e of the removal of a special co%administrator co ld have #een avoided if the trial co rt promptl$ appointed a reg lar administrator.o. the . same "ith the previo s case.00 "as filed #$ petitioner.s appointment as special co% administratro. Comment: The .o rt of /ppeals. and no "ritten e)planation "as made as to "h$ there "as no personal service of the claim. The certification of non%for m shopping is re< ired onl$ for complaints and other initiator$ pleadings. Alan Sheker vs state o! Alice Sheker Facts: The "ill of /lice She(er "as admitted #$ the co rt and thereafter all creditors "ere ordered to file their respective claims against the estate. On Oct. The co rt thereon dismissed the claim. and ma(e a personal service. On the iss e of filing fees.s fees+ against an estate for services rendered #$ a la"$er to the administratri) to assist her in f lfilling her d ties to the estate even "itho t pa$ment of separate doc(et fees #eca se the filing fees shall constit te a lien on the . at their discretion. the e)ec tri) of the estate moved for the dismissal of the mone$ claim on the gro nd that no doc(et fee "as paid. !o"ever.290.o rt #eca se s ch calls also for practica#ili$ for it to appl$ other than the a#sence of special provisions.

#elongs to @ionisia and the rest of the propert$ is co%o"ned #$ Dicolasa ?acalso. the$ discovered that certain doc ments prevent them from doing soC *1+ /ffidavit #$ /nacleto .o rt.ect propert$.s da ghter.atalina 8ernandeB *Spo ses 8ernandeB+. is appro)imatel$ E17 s<. tried to register their share in the s #. petitioners -eter and @e#orah /nn Anri< eB. /mor. On the other hand respondents. in the interest of s #stantial . it "o ld #e the estate that "o ld #enefit pon #eing given notice of a mone$ claim against it so it can #e inspected and verified. R le 141 of the R les of . "hile E02. This m st ta(e precedence over the action for reconve$ance.ect parcel of land located in Talisa$. The$ li(e"ise pra$ed for the >repartition and res #division> of the s #. the respondents filed a complaint for ann lment or n llification of the aforementioned doc ments and for damages. 1391.99 s<. -etition granted. The co rt sho ld have rela)ed and li#erall$ constr ed the proced ral r le on the re< irement of a "ritten e)planation for non%personal service. and not in an ordinar$ s it for reconve$ance of propert$.00 to Spo ses @ionisio and .a#rera.s residence and the respondent co rt is ver$ far. ' an Re$es. as h s#and and da ghter of /nacleto. sold 200 s<.a#rera #efore the$ can file an ordinar$ civil action to n llif$ the affidavits of /nacleto . the determination of "ho are the legal heirs of the deceased co ple m st #e made in the proper special proceedings in co rt. The respondents have $et . On ' ne 17. for -200. # t pon appeal it "as reversed.ect propert$.ect land. claim to #e the heirs of /nacleto .000. hence the petition. m. Re#es vs nri$ue% Facts: -etitioners claim to #e the la"f l heirs of @ionisia Re$es "ho co%o"ned the s #. 1727 stating that /nacleto onl$ o"ned G of Lot Do. also their co%respondents in this case. 1777.p rs ant to Section 2. m. dismissed the case. 8lorentino Re$es and 6a)imiano @ico. a "ritten e)planation "h$ service "as not done personall$ =might have #een s perfl o s> #eca se the distance from the petitioner. or the trial co rt ma$ order the pa$ment of s ch filing fees "ithin a reasona#le time.e# .a#rera dated 6arch 11. m. /lleging that the doc ments are fra d lent and fictitio s.a#rera. o t of the 1091 s<. 1792 stating that his share in Lot Do. Comment: 5es. on the iss e of personal service. The RT. m. 1391. "ith /nacleto . as in 6 sa v. stice. ?eca se in the end. Ruling: 5es.a#rera and @ionisia Re$es.F *2+ /ffidavit #$ @ionisia Re$es dated ' l$ 1E. in this case the co rt "as too #linded "ith its sense of d t$ to follo" to the r les to the letters. the s #. 0hen Spo ses 8ernandeB. . ". Issue: 0hether or not the respondents have to instit te a special proceeding to determine their stat s as heirs of /nacleto .

ect propert$. and reso rces. Comment: This r ling of the co rt is onl$ proper #eca se if people are allo"ed to file claims "itho t verif$ing first their respective interest.mone$. "asting the co rts time. then the "hole s$stem "ill #e in sham#les. ?eca se then. th s.to s #stantiate their claim as the legal heirs of /nacleto . The R les of . S ch interest. co rts "o ld tr$ to decide on claims # t onl$ to find o t later that the claimants do not reall$ have interest to the claim.a#rera "ho are. / real part$ in interest is the one "ho stands to #e #enefited or in. red #$ the . dgment in the s it or the one entitled to the avails thereof. m st #e one "hich is present and s #stantial. as disting ished from a mere e)pectanc$.o rt provide that onl$ a real part$ in interest is allo"ed to prosec te and defend an action in co rt. to #e considered a real interest. entitled to the s #. s #ordinate or conse< ential interest. . or a f t re. contingent.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.