001 DE OCAMPO v.
SANTOS (PELIÑO) Jose was an illegitimate child of Jose and unable to play the role of
April 30, 1941| Imperial, J. | Appointment and of Executors, Administrators, and
Special Administrators
APPELLANT: Jose S. De Ocampo
APPELLEE: Ambrosio Santos, Judge of First Instance of Tarlac
SUMMARY: Nicolas died. During the intestate proceedings in the CFI of Tarlac, Jose
requested that he be appointed as administrator since Nicolas died without a will and he
was the nearest relative since he was Nicolas’ son. Jose’s petition was opposed by Paula,
claiming that Jose was an illegitimate child and that she should be the administrator since
she was Nicolas’ widow. But another person named Justa also appeared, claiming that she
should be the administrator since she was the legitimate widow of Nicolas. Paula’s lawyer
proposed that Carlos be appointed as special administrator. Jose didn’t oppose the
appointment of a special administrator, but challenged Carlos’ appointment. Since the
determination of who should be the regular administrator was still pending, the court
appointed Carlos and asked him to pay the bond. Jose filed a MR, but was denied. Hence,
this appeal. The issue in this case is whether or not the CFI abused its discretion by
appointing a special administrator. The parties had agreed to appoint a special
administrator during the pendency of the controversy on the appointment of the regular
administrator. The appointment of Carlos was correct, considering that he was a
disinterested party. The difficulty of appointing a regular or special administrator falls
within the sound discretion of the courts. The order by which the appointees designated
by the law should be appointed may be disregarded by the court when the circumstances
call for it or when the person called is not suitable or partial. In this case, the court was
justified in selecting Carlos, considering that Jose was alleged to be an illegitimate child
and Paula and Justa both claim to be widows of Nicolas; the evidence is not clear as to
who had the better right to be the regular administrator. Jose’s claim that the court lacked
the power to appoint a special administrator is not correct since Art. 1 of Rule 81
authorizes the appointment of a special administrator when the court cannot appoint a
regular administrator in the order established by Art. 6 of Rule 80.
DOCTRINE: The order by which the appointees designated by the law should be
appointed may be disregarded by the court when the circumstances call for it or when the
person called is not suitable or partial. Art. 1 of Rule 81 authorizes the appointment of a
special administrator when the court cannot appoint a regular administrator in the order
established by Art. 6 of Rule 80. (old rules)
**The whole case is in Spanish, wala ako makita na digest, so trinanslate ko from google and tried my
best to understand based on that. Please bear with me haha**
FACTS:
1. The present remedy of certiorari is to annul the August 27, 1940, which
appointed Carlos Rodriguez as special administrator and another order of
September 12, 1940, the motion for reconsideration of the previous order
was presented.
2. In the intestate of Nicolas De Ocampo in the CFI of Tarlac, Jose De
Ocampo (Jose) requested that he be appointed as administrator, alleging that
Nicolas died without a will and that he left properties in the amount of P29k
and that he was one of the closest relatives since he as a son of Nicolas.
a. But the petition was opposed by Paula Apostol (Paula), claiming that
administrator since he lacks integrity, and that she should be the
administrator since she was the widow of Jose.
b. Another person named Justa Samaniego (Justa) also appeared and
claims that she should be the administrator alleging that she was the
legitimate widow of Nicolas.
3. In August 22, 1940, Paula’s lawyer proposed that Carlos Rodriguez, a civil
engineer and resident of Tarlac, be appointed as special administrator.
a. Jose’s lawyer did not oppose the appointment of a special
administrator, but challenged the appointment in favor of Carlos and
insisted that Jose be selected.
4. In view of the proposal and the circumstance that the final selection of the
regular administrator was pending, the Court appointed Carlos as special
administrator, setting the bond of 3k that he had to pay to qualify.
a. Jose filed an MR, but was denied.
5. Jose, instead of appealing the order, filed the present appeal.
ISSUE/s:
1. WON the court abused its discretion by appointing a special administrator. -
NO, the rules authorize the appointment of a special administrator when the
court cannot appoint a regular administrator in the order established in the
rules.
RULING: The petition for certiorari is DENIED, with the costs to Jose.
RATIO:
1. The CFI did not exceed its exercise of discretion or made any error.
2. The parties had agreed to appoint a special administrator during the
pendency of the controversy on the appointment of the regular
administrator.
a. The appointment of Carlos was correct, considering that he was a
disinterested party.
3. The difficulty of appointing a regular or special administrator falls within
the sound discretion of the courts.
4. The order by which the appointees designated by the law should be
appointed may be disregarded by the court when the circumstances call for
it or when the person called is not suitable or partial.
5. In this case, the court was justified in selecting Carlos, considering that Jose
was alleged to be an illegitimate child and Paula and Justa both claim to be
widows of Nicolas.
a. The evidence is still not clear as to who had the better right to be the
regular administrator.
6. Jose’s claim that the court lacked the power to appoint a special
administrator is not correct since Art. 1 of Rule 81 authorizes the
appointment of a special administrator when the court cannot appoint a
regular administrator in the order established by Art. 6 of Rule 80.