1.

The order of the judge appointing a regular administrator is final and

appealable whereas the order of appointment of special administrator is
merely interlocutory and is not appealable; the remedy, which a party may
seek with regard to the appointment of a special administrator, is certiorari.

2. Yes, a bond is required before an executor or administrator enters upon the
execution of his trust.

Jurisprudence provides that the nature of the bond is statutory since the
conditions required by the statutes forms part of the bond agreement. The
conditions attached to the bond includes cases such as:
1. Administering the estate and paying the debts
2. Making an inventory within 3 months
3. Performing all orders of the court
4. Accounting within 1 year and when required by the court at any
other time as may be provided.

More, the giving of the bond is conditioned on account that the administrator
will safeguard the estate and also to secure faithful administration and
distribution of the same.


3. Under the case of de Borja vs. Tan, the court has ruled that the procedural
defect was cured when the interested parties in the person of the heirs
presented their motions to reconsider the appointment. When the court,
therefore, overruled their objection and confirmed the appointment, the
interested parties were given their day in court, and the previous objection of
lack of notice or opportunity to be heard fully met.

More, it is to be noted that what the law prohibits is not the absence of
previous notice, but the absolute absence thereof and lack of opportunity to
be heard.

Here, there was an opportunity given in this case when the petitioners
presented their motions for reconsiderations.

Hence, the letter’s granted was legal and valid and the appointment was
found to be within the prerogative of the judge.

4. Jurisprudence provides that an administrator is required to observe or to
exercise reasonable diligence and to act in good faith in the performance of
the trust given to him.


5. No, a formal order of revocation is not required.

Under the case of Lao v. Lao, it has been ruled by the court that once a regular
administrator has been appointed and such qualifies, a formal order of
revocation of the letters for the special administrator is not necessary since
the appointment of a special administrator subsists and continues only until
a permanent letter has been granted.

Hence, the succession of the regular administrator to all the rights of the
special administrator is automatic once the former has been appointed and is
duly qualified.