Advincula vs.

Teodoro
99 SCRA 413, G.R. No. L-9282, May 31, 1956

FACTS:

Emilio Advincula was appointed special administrator, then later regular administrator of his deceased
wife’s estate. After he qualified as administrator, his brothers-in-law submitted a document purporting
to be the deceased’s will. Emilio opposed the probate of the will on the ground that the signature was
not his wife’s and even if it was, the same was procured by fraud. One of the brothers-in-law, Enrique
Lacson, prayed that he (Enrique) be appointed administrator in lieu of Emilio. During the hearing, it was
alleged that Emilio was incompetent, incapable and unsuitable to act as administrator because Emilio is
foreign to the estate”. The court ruled in favor of Enrique’s motion. Emilio filed an MR but the same was
denied so he instituted the present action for certiorari to annul the lower court’s order.

ISSUE: Whether the lower court acted in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and excess of
jurisdiction in granting Lacson’s motion.

HELD:

Yes. The appointment of Lacson as administrator in lieu of Advincula is predicated on the fact that
Lacson was named executor of the deceased’s will. This provision, however cannot be enforced until the
said will is admitted to probate. The discovery of a will of the deceased does not ipso facto nullify letters
of administration already issued or even authorize the revocation thereof until the alleged will is
“proved and allowed by the court”. Furthermore, the lower court appears to have followed the
argument of the respondents that Emilio, being foreign to the deceased’s estate is incapable of being an
administrator. This argument is untenable because from the viewpoint of logic and experience, as
stranger may be competent, capable and fit to be administrator of the estate in the same way that a
family member can be incompetent, incapable and unfit to do so. Besides, Emilio as the surviving spouse
if a forced heir of the deceased. He is entitled to ½ of all property a part from his share of the other half
thereof as heir of the deceased since “all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal
partnership.