Republic of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
DALISAY E. OCAMPO, VINCE
E. OCAMPO, MELINDA CARLA E. OCAMPO, and LEONARDO E. OCAMPO, JR., Petitioners, - versus - RENATO M. OCAMPO and
ERLINDA M. OCAMPO, Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 187879
Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: July 5,
2010 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
This petition[1]
for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision[2] dated
December 16, 2008 and the Resolution[3]
dated April 30, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 104683. The Decision annulled and set aside the Order
dated March 13, 2008[4] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24, Biñan, Laguna, in Sp. Proc. No.
B-3089; while the Resolution denied the motion for reconsideration of the
Decision.
The Antecedents
Petitioners Dalisay E. Ocampo
(Dalisay), Vince E. Ocampo (Vince), Melinda Carla E. Ocampo (Melinda), and
Leonardo E. Ocampo, Jr. (Leonardo, Jr.) are the surviving wife and the children
of Leonardo Ocampo (Leonardo), who died on January 23, 2004. Leonardo and his siblings, respondents Renato
M. Ocampo (Renato) and Erlinda M. Ocampo (Erlinda) are the legitimate children
and only heirs of the spouses Vicente and Maxima Ocampo, who died intestate on
December 19, 1972 and February 19, 1996, respectively. Vicente and Maxima left several properties,
mostly situated in Biñan, Laguna.
Vicente and Maxima left no will and no debts.
On
June 24, 2004, five (5) months after the death of Leonardo, petitioners initiated a petition for intestate proceedings,
entitled “In Re: Intestate Proceedings of
the Estate of Sps. Vicente Ocampo and Maxima Mercado Ocampo, and Leonardo M.
Ocampo,” in the RTC, Branch 24,
Biñan, Laguna, docketed as Spec.
Proc. No. B-3089.[5] The petition alleged that, upon the death of
Vicente and Maxima, respondents and their brother Leonardo jointly controlled,
managed, and administered the estate of their parents. Under such circumstance, Leonardo had been
receiving his share consisting of one-third (1/3) of the total income generated
from the properties of the estate. However,
when Leonardo died, respondents took possession, control and management of the
properties to the exclusion of petitioners.
The petition prayed for the settlement of the estate of Vicente and
Maxima and the estate of Leonardo. It,
likewise, prayed for the appointment of an administrator to apportion, divide,
and award the two estates among the lawful heirs of the decedents.
Respondents
filed their Opposition and Counter-Petition dated October 7, 2004,[6]
contending that the petition was defective as it sought the judicial settlement
of two estates in a single proceeding.
They argued that the settlement of the estate of Leonardo was premature,
the same being dependent only upon the determination of his hereditary rights
in the settlement of his parents’ estate.
In their counter-petition, respondents prayed that they be appointed as
special joint administrators of the estate of Vicente and Maxima.
In
an Order dated March 4, 2005,[7]
the RTC denied respondents’ opposition to the settlement proceedings but
admitted their counter-petition. The
trial court also clarified that the judicial settlement referred only to the
properties of Vicente and Maxima.
Through
a Motion for Appointment of Joint Special Administrators dated October 11, 2005,[8]
respondents reiterated their prayer for appointment as special joint
administrators of the estate, and to serve as such without posting a bond.
In
their Comment dated November 3, 2005,[9]
petitioners argued that, since April 2002, they had been deprived of their fair
share of the income of the estate, and that the appointment of respondents as special
joint administrators would further cause
injustice to them. Thus, they prayed
that, in order to avoid further delay, letters of administration to serve as
joint administrators of the subject estate be issued to respondents and Dalisay.
In another Motion for Appointment of
a Special Administrator dated December 5, 2005,[10]
petitioners nominated the Biñan Rural Bank to serve as special administrator
pending resolution of the motion for the issuance of the letters of
administration.
In
its June 15, 2006 Order,[11]
the RTC appointed Dalisay and Renato as special
joint administrators of the estate of the deceased spouses, and required them to
post a bond of P200,000.00 each.[12]
Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration
dated August 1, 2006[13]
of the Order, insisting that Dalisay was incompetent and unfit to be appointed
as administrator of the estate, considering that she even failed to take care
of her husband Leonardo when he was paralyzed in 1997. They also contended that petitioners’ prayer
for Dalisay’s appointment as special administrator was already deemed abandoned
upon their nomination of the Biñan Rural Bank to act as special administrator
of the estate.
In their Supplement to the Motion for
Reconsideration,[14]
respondents asserted their priority in right to be appointed as administrators
being the next of kin of Vicente and Maxima, whereas Dalisay was a mere
daughter-in-law of the decedents and not even a legal heir by right of
representation from her late husband Leonardo.
Pending the resolution of the Motion
for Reconsideration, petitioners filed a Motion to Submit Inventory and
Accounting dated November 20, 2006,[15]
praying that the RTC issue an order directing respondents to submit a true
inventory of the estate of the decedent spouses and to render an accounting
thereof from the time they took over the collection of the income of the
estate.
Respondents filed their Comment and
Manifestation dated January 15, 2007,[16]
claiming that they could not yet be compelled to submit an inventory and render
an accounting of the income and assets of the estate inasmuch as there was
still a pending motion for reconsideration of the June 15, 2006 Order
appointing Dalisay as co-special administratrix with Renato.
In
its Order dated February 16, 2007, the RTC revoked the appointment of Dalisay
as co-special administratrix, substituting her with Erlinda. The RTC took into consideration the fact that
respondents were the nearest of kin of Vicente and Maxima. Petitioners did not contest this Order and even
manifested in open court their desire for the speedy settlement of the estate.
On
April 23, 2007, or two (2) months after respondents’ appointment as joint
special administrators, petitioners filed a Motion for an Inventory and to
Render Account of the Estate,[17]
reiterating their stance that respondents, as joint special administrators,
should be directed to submit a true inventory of the income and assets of the
estate.
Respondents
then filed a Motion for Exemption to File Administrators’ Bond[18]
on May 22, 2007, praying that they be allowed to enter their duties as special
administrators without the need to file an administrators’ bond due to their
difficulty in raising the necessary amount.
They alleged that, since petitioners manifested in open court that they
no longer object to the appointment of respondents as special
co-administrators, it would be to the best interest of all the heirs that the
estate be spared from incurring unnecessary expenses in paying for the bond
premiums. They also assured the RTC that
they would faithfully exercise their duties as special administrators under
pain of contempt should they violate any undertaking in the performance of the
trust of their office.
In
an Order dated June 29, 2007,[19]
the RTC directed the parties to submit their respective comments or oppositions
to the pending incidents, i.e.,
petitioners’ Motion for Inventory and to Render Account, and respondents’
Motion for Exemption to File Administrators’ Bond.
Respondents
filed their Comment and/or Opposition,[20]
stating that they have already filed a comment on petitioners’ Motion for
Inventory and to Render Account. They
asserted that the RTC should, in the meantime, hold in abeyance the resolution
of this Motion, pending the resolution of their Motion for Exemption to File
Administrators’ Bond.
On
October 15, 2007, or eight (8) months after the February 16, 2007 Order
appointing respondents as special joint administrators, petitioners filed a
Motion to Terminate or Revoke the Special Administration and to Proceed to
Judicial Partition or Appointment of Regular Administrator.[21] Petitioners contended that the special
administration was not necessary as the estate is neither vast nor complex, the
properties of the estate being identified and undisputed, and not involved in
any litigation necessitating the representation of special administrators. Petitioners, likewise, contended that
respondents had been resorting to the mode of special administration merely to
delay and prolong their deprivation of what was due them. Petitioners cited an alleged fraudulent sale
by respondents of a real property for P2,700,000.00, which the latter
represented to petitioners to have been sold only for P1,500,000.00, and
respondents’ alleged misrepresentation that petitioners owed the estate for the
advances to cover the hospital expenses of Leonardo, but, in fact, were not yet
paid.
Respondents
filed their Opposition and Comment[22]
on March 10, 2008, to which, in turn, petitioners filed their Reply to
Opposition/Comment[23]
on March 17, 2008.
In
its Order dated March 13, 2008,[24]
the RTC granted petitioners’ Motion, revoking and terminating the appointment
of Renato and Erlinda as joint special administrators, on account of their
failure to comply with its Order, particularly the posting of the required bond,
and to enter their duties and responsibilities as special administrators, i.e., the submission of an inventory of
the properties and of an income statement of the estate. The RTC also appointed Melinda as regular
administratrix, subject to the posting of a bond in the amount of P200,000.00,
and directed her to submit an inventory of the properties and an income
statement of the subject estate. The RTC
likewise found that judicial partition may proceed after Melinda had assumed
her duties and responsibilities as regular administratrix.
Aggrieved,
respondents filed a petition for certiorari[25]
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA, ascribing grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the RTC in (a) declaring them to have failed to enter
the office of special administration despite lapse of reasonable time, when in
truth they had not entered the office because they were waiting for the
resolution of their motion for exemption from bond; (b) appointing Melinda as
regular administratrix, a mere granddaughter of Vicente and Maxima, instead of
them who, being the surviving children of the deceased spouses, were the next
of kin; and (c) declaring them to have been unsuitable for the trust, despite
lack of hearing and evidence against them.
Petitioners
filed their Comment to the Petition and Opposition to Application for temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction,[26]
reiterating their arguments in their Motion for the revocation of respondents’
appointment as joint special administrators.
Respondents filed their Reply.[27]
On
December 16, 2008, the CA rendered its assailed Decision granting the petition
based on the finding that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in revoking
respondents’ appointment as joint special administrators without first ruling
on their motion for exemption from bond, and for appointing Melinda as regular
administratrix without conducting a formal hearing to determine her competency
to assume as such. According to the CA,
the posting of the bond is a prerequisite before respondents could enter their
duties and responsibilities as joint special administrators, particularly their
submission of an inventory of the properties of the estate and an income
statement thereon.
Petitioners
filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision.[28] The CA, however, denied it. Hence, this petition, ascribing to the CA
errors of law and grave abuse of discretion for annulling and setting aside the
RTC Order dated March 13, 2008.
Our Ruling
The
pertinent provisions relative to the special administration of the decedents’
estate under the Rules of Court provide—
Sec. 1. Appointment
of special administrator. – When there is delay in granting letters testamentary
or of administration by any cause including an appeal from the allowance or
disallowance of a will, the court may appoint a special administrator to take
possession and charge of the estate of the deceased until the questions causing
the delay are decided and executors or administrators appointed.[29]
Sec. 2. Powers
and duties of special administrator. – Such special administrator shall take
possession and charge of goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate of the
deceased and preserve the same for the executor or administrator afterwards
appointed, and for that purpose may commence and maintain suits as
administrator. He may sell only such
perishable and other property as the court orders sold. A special administrator shall not be liable
to pay any debts of the deceased unless so ordered by the court.[30]
Sec. 1. Bond
to be given before issuance of letters; Amount; Conditions. – Before an
executor or administrator enters upon the execution of his trust, and letters
testamentary or of administration issue, he shall give a bond, in such sum as
the court directs, conditioned as follows:
(a) To make and return to the court, within
three (3) months, a true and complete inventory of all goods, chattels, rights,
credits, and estate of the deceased which shall come to his possession or
knowledge or to the possession of any other person for him;
(b) To administer according to these rules,
and, if an executor, according to the will of the testator, all goods,
chattels, rights, credits, and estate which shall at any time come to his
possession or to the possession of any other person for him, and from the
proceeds to pay and discharge all debts, legacies, and charges on the same, or
such dividends thereon as shall be decreed by the court;
(c) To render a true and just account of his
administration to the court within one (1) year, and at any other time when
required by the court;
(d) To perform all orders of the court by him
to be performed.[31]
Sec. 4. Bond
of special administrator. – A special administrator before entering upon
the duties of his trust shall give a bond, in such sum as the court directs,
conditioned that he will make and return a true inventory of the goods,
chattels, rights, credits, and estate of the deceased which come to his
possession or knowledge, and that he will truly account for such as are
received by him when required by the court, and will deliver the same to the
person appointed executor or administrator, or to such other person as may be
authorized to receive them.[32]
Inasmuch as there was a disagreement
as to who should be appointed as administrator of the estate of Vicente and
Maxima, the RTC, acting as a probate court, deemed it wise to appoint joint
special administrators pending the determination of the person or persons to whom
letters of administration may be issued.
The RTC was justified in doing so considering that such disagreement
caused undue delay in the issuance of letters of administration, pursuant to
Section 1 of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.
Initially, the RTC, on June 15, 2006, appointed Renato and Dalisay as
joint special administrators, imposing upon each of them the obligation to post
an administrator’s bond of P200,000.00.
However, taking into account the arguments of respondents that Dalisay
was incompetent and unfit to assume the office of a special administratrix and
that Dalisay, in effect, waived her appointment when petitioners nominated
Biñan Rural Bank as special administrator, the RTC, on February 16, 2007,
revoked Dalisay’s appointment and substituted her with Erlinda.
A special administrator
is an officer of the court who is subject to its supervision and control,
expected to work for the best interest of the entire estate, with a view to its
smooth administration and speedy settlement.[33] When appointed, he or she is not regarded as
an agent or representative of the parties suggesting the appointment.[34] The principal object of the appointment of a temporary
administrator is to preserve the estate until it can pass to the hands of a
person fully authorized to administer it for the benefit of creditors and heirs,
pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.[35]
While the RTC considered
that respondents were the nearest of kin to their deceased parents in their
appointment as joint special administrators, this is not a mandatory
requirement for the appointment. It has
long been settled that the selection or removal of special administrators is
not governed by the rules regarding the selection or removal of regular
administrators.[36] The probate court may appoint or remove special
administrators based on grounds other than those enumerated in the Rules at its
discretion, such that the need to first pass upon and resolve the issues of
fitness or unfitness[37]
and the application of the order of preference under Section 6 of Rule 78,[38]
as would be proper in the case of a regular administrator, do not obtain. As long as the discretion is exercised
without grave abuse, and is based on reason, equity, justice, and legal
principles, interference by higher courts is unwarranted.[39] The appointment or removal
of special
administrators, being discretionary, is thus interlocutory and may be assailed
through a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[40]
Granting the certiorari petition, the CA found that
the RTC gravely abused its discretion in revoking respondents’ appointment as
joint special administrators, and for failing to first resolve the pending
Motion for Exemption to File Administrators’ Bond, ratiocinating that the
posting of the administrators’ bond is a pre-requisite to respondents’ entering
into the duties and responsibilities of their designated office. This Court disagrees.
It is worthy of mention
that, as early as October 11, 2005, in their Motion for Appointment as Joint Special
Administrators, respondents already prayed for their exemption to post bond
should they be assigned as joint special administrators. However, the RTC effectively denied this
prayer when it issued its June 15, 2006 Order, designating Renato and Dalisay
as special administrators and enjoining them to post bond in the amount of P200,000.00
each. This denial was, in effect,
reiterated when the RTC rendered its February 16, 2007 Order substituting
Dalisay with Erlinda as special administratrix.
Undeterred by the RTC’s
resolve to require them to post their respective administrators’ bonds,
respondents filed anew a Motion for Exemption to File Administrators’ Bond on
May 22, 2007, positing that it would be to the best interest of the estate of
their deceased parents and all the heirs to spare the estate from incurring the
unnecessary expense of paying for their bond premiums since they could not
raise the money themselves. To note,
this Motion was filed only after petitioners filed a Motion for an Inventory
and to Render Account of the Estate on April 23, 2007. Respondents then argued that they could not
enter into their duties and responsibilities as special administrators in light
of the pendency of their motion for exemption.
In other words, they could not yet submit an inventory and render an
account of the income of the estate since they had not yet posted their bonds.
Consequently, the RTC
revoked respondents’ appointment as special administrators for failing to post
their administrators’ bond and to submit an inventory and accounting as
required of them, tantamount to failing to comply with its lawful orders. Inarguably, this was, again, a denial of
respondents’ plea to assume their office sans
a bond. The RTC rightly did so.
Pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 81, the bond
secures the performance of the duties and obligations of an administrator
namely: (1) to administer the estate and pay the debts; (2) to perform all
judicial orders; (3) to account within one (1) year and at any other time when required
by the probate court; and (4) to make an inventory within three (3)
months. More specifically, per Section 4
of the same Rule, the bond is conditioned on the faithful execution of the
administration of the decedent’s estate requiring the special administrator to
(1) make and return a true inventory of the goods, chattels, rights, credits,
and estate of the deceased which come to his possession or knowledge; (2) truly
account for such as received by him when required by the court; and (3) deliver
the same to the person appointed as executor or regular administrator, or to
such other person as may be authorized to receive them.
Verily, the
administration bond is for the benefit of the creditors and the heirs, as it
compels the administrator, whether regular or special, to perform the trust
reposed in, and discharge the obligations incumbent upon, him. Its object and purpose is to safeguard the properties
of the decedent, and, therefore, the bond should not be considered as part of
the necessary expenses chargeable against the estate, not being included among
the acts constituting the care, management, and settlement of the estate. Moreover, the ability to post the bond is in
the nature of a qualification for the office of administration.[41]
Hence, the RTC revoked
respondents’ designation as joint special administrators, especially
considering that respondents never denied that they have been in possession,
charge, and actual administration of the estate of Vicente and Maxima since
2002 up to the present, despite the assumption of Melinda as regular
administratrix. In fact, respondents
also admitted that, allegedly out of good faith and sincerity to observe
transparency, they had submitted a Statement of Cash Distribution[42]
for the period covering April 2002 to June 2006,[43]
where they indicated that Renato had received P4,241,676.00, Erlinda P4,164,526.96,
and petitioners P2,486,656.60, and that the estate had advanced P2,700,000.00
for the hospital and funeral expenses of Leonardo.[44] The latter cash advance was questioned by
petitioners in their motion for revocation of special administration on account
of the demand letter[45]
dated June 20, 2007 of P2,087,380.49 since January 2004. Undeniably, respondents had already been
distributing the incomes or fruits generated from the properties of the
decedents’ estate, yet they still failed to post their respective
administrators’ bonds despite collection of the advances from their supposed
shares. This state of affairs continued even after a
considerable lapse of time from the appointment of Renato as a special
administrator of the estate on June 15, 2006 and from February 16, 2007 when
the RTC substituted Erlinda, for Dalisay, as special administratrix.
What is more,
respondents’ insincerity in administering the estate was betrayed by the Deed
of Conditional Sale dated January 12, 2004[46]
discovered by petitioners. This Deed was
executed between respondents, as the only heirs of Maxima, as vendors, thus
excluding the representing heirs of Leonardo, and Spouses Marcus Jose B.
Brillantes and Amelita Catalan-Brillantes, incumbent lessors, as vendees, over
a real property situated in Biñan, Laguna, and covered by Transfer Certificate
of Title No. T-332305 of the Registry of Deeds of Laguna, for a total purchase
price of P2,700,000.00. The Deed
stipulated for a payment of P1,500,000.00 upon the signing of the
contract, and the balance of P1,200,000.00 to be paid within one (1)
month from the receipt of title of the vendees.
The contract also stated that the previous contract of lease between the
vendors and the vendees shall no longer be effective; hence, the vendees were
no longer obligated to pay the monthly rentals on the property. And yet there is a purported Deed of Absolute
Sale[47]
over the same realty between respondents, and including Leonardo as represented
by Dalisay, as vendors, and the same spouses, as vendees, for a purchase price
of only P1,500,000.00. Notably,
this Deed of Absolute Sale already had the signatures of respondents and
vendee-spouses. Petitioners claimed that
respondents were coaxing Dalisay into signing the same, while respondents said
that Dalisay already got a share from this transaction in the amount of P500,000.00. It may also be observed that the time of the execution
of this Deed of Absolute Sale, although not notarized as the Deed of
Conditional Sale, might not have been distant from the execution of the latter
Deed, considering the similar Community Tax Certificate Numbers of the parties
appearing in both contracts.
Given these
circumstances, this Court finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
RTC when it revoked the appointment of respondents as joint special
administrators, the removal being grounded on reason, equity, justice, and
legal principle. Indeed, even if special
administrators had already been appointed, once the probate court finds the
appointees no longer entitled to its confidence, it is justified in withdrawing
the appointment and giving no valid effect thereto.[48]
On the other hand, the
Court finds the RTC’s designation of Melinda as regular administratrix improper
and abusive of its discretion.
In the determination of
the person to be appointed as regular administrator, the following provisions of
Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, state –
Sec. 1. Who are incompetent to serve as executors or administrators. – No
person is competent to serve as executor or administrator who:
(a) Is a minor;
(b) Is not a resident of the
(c) Is in the opinion of the
court unfit to execute the duties of the trust by reason of drunkenness,
improvidence, or want of understanding or integrity, or by reason of conviction
of an offense involving moral turpitude.
x x x x
Sec. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. – If no
executor is named in the will, or the executor or executors are incompetent,
refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a person dies intestate,
administration shall be granted:
(a) To the surviving husband or
wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or both, in the discretion of the
court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of kin,
requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to serve;
(b) If such surviving husband or
wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or the person selected by them, be
incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or widow, or next of kin, neglects
for thirty (30) days after the death of the person to apply for administration
or to request that administration be granted to some other person, it may be
granted to one or more of the principal creditors, if competent and willing to
serve;
(c) If there is no such creditor
competent and willing to serve, it may be granted to such other person as the
court may select.
Further, on the matter of
contest for the issuance of letters of administration, the following provisions
of Rule 79 are pertinent –
Sec. 2. Contents of petition for letters of administration. – A petition
for letters of administration must be filed by an interested person and must
show, so far as known to the petitioner:
(a) The jurisdictional facts;
(b)
The names, ages, and residences of the heirs, and the names and
residences of the creditors, of the decedent;
(c) The probable value and character
of the property of the estate;
(d)
The name of the person for whom letters of administration are
prayed.
But no defect in the petition
shall render void the issuance of letters of administration.
Sec. 3. Court to set time for hearing. Notice thereof. – When a petition
for letters of administration is filed in the court having jurisdiction, such
court shall fix a time and place for hearing the petition, and shall cause
notice thereof to be given to the known heirs and creditors of the decedent,
and to any other persons believed to have an interest in the estate, in the
manner provided in Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76.
Sec. 4. Opposition to petition for administration. – Any interested person
may, by filing a written opposition, contest the petition on the ground of the incompetency
of the person for whom letters are prayed therein, or on the ground of the
contestant’s own right to the administration, and may pray that letters issue
to himself, or to any competent person or persons named in the opposition.
Sec. 5. Hearing and order for letters to issue. – At the hearing of the
petition, it must first be shown that notice has been given as herein-above
required, and thereafter the court shall hear the proofs of the parties in
support of their respective allegations, and if satisfied that the decedent
left no will, or that there is no competent and willing executor, it shall
order the issuance of letters of administration to the party best entitled
thereto.
Admittedly, there was no
petition for letters of administration with respect to Melinda, as the prayer
for her appointment as co-administrator was embodied in the motion for the
termination of the special administration.
Although there was a hearing set for the motion on November 5, 2007, the
same was canceled and reset to February 8, 2008 due to the absence of the
parties’ counsels. The February 8, 2008
hearing was again deferred to March 10, 2008 on account of the ongoing
renovation of the Hall of Justice.
Despite the resetting, petitioners filed a Manifestation/Motion dated
February 29, 2008,[49]
reiterating their prayer for partition or for the appointment of Melinda as
regular administrator and for the revocation of the special
administration. It may be mentioned that,
despite the filing by respondents of their Opposition and Comment to the motion
to revoke the special administration, the prayer for the appointment of Melinda
as regular administratrix of the estate was not specifically traversed in the
said pleading. Thus, the capacity,
competency, and legality of Melinda’s appointment as such was not properly objected
to by respondents despite being the next of kin to the decedent spouses, and was
not threshed out by the RTC acting as a probate court in accordance with the
above mentioned Rules.
However, having in mind
the objective of facilitating the settlement of the estate of Vicente and
Maxima, with a view to putting an end to the squabbles of the heirs, we take
into account the fact that Melinda, pursuant to the RTC Order dated March 13,
2008, already posted the required bond of P200,000.00 on March 26, 2008,
by virtue of which, Letters of Administration were issued to her the following
day, and that she filed an Inventory of the Properties of the Estate dated
April 15, 2008.[50] These acts clearly manifested her intention to
serve willingly as administratrix of the decedents’ estate, but her appointment
should be converted into one of special administration, pending the proceedings
for regular administration. Furthermore,
since it appears that the only unpaid obligation is the hospital bill due from
Leonardo’s estate, which is not subject of this case, judicial partition may then
proceed with dispatch.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The
Decision dated December 16, 2008 and the Resolution dated April 30, 2009 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 104683 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION
that the Order dated March 13, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24,
Biñan, Laguna, with respect to the revocation of the special administration in
favor of Renato M. Ocampo and Erlinda M. Ocampo, is REINSTATED. The appointment
of Melinda Carla E. Ocampo as regular administratrix is SET ASIDE. Melinda is
designated instead as special administratrix of the estate under the same
administrator’s bond she had posted. The
trial court is directed to conduct with dispatch the proceedings for the
appointment of the regular administrator and, thereafter, to proceed with
judicial partition. No costs.
SO
ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A
T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 12-33.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Magdangal M. de Leon, concurring; id. at 34-51.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] As admitted by respondents in their Petition for Certiorari with Urgent Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction; id. at 86.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] Rule 80.
[30]
[31] Rule 81.
[32]
[33] Co
v.
[34] Heirs of Belinda Dahlia A. Castillo v. Lacuata-Gabriel, G.R. No. 162934, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 747, 757; Valarao v. Pascual, 441 Phil. 226, 238 (2002).
[35] Tan v. Gedorio, Jr., G.R. No. 166520, March 14, 2008, 548 SCRA 528, 537.
[36] Co
v.
[37] Co
v.
[38] Infra.
[39] Co
v.
[41] Commissioner
of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, 385 Phil. 397, 409 (2000); Moran Sison v. Teodoro, 100 Phil. 1055,
1058 (1957); Sulit v.
[42] Annex “N” to the Petition for Certiorari before the CA.
[43] Per respondents’ Petition for Certiorari before the CA; rollo, p. 96.
[44] Per petitioners’ Comment to the petition before the CA; id. at 114.
[46]
[47]
[48] Co
v.
[50] As admitted by respondents in their Comment; id. at 165-166.