Feliciano de Guzman v Judge Teofilo Guadiz GR No L 48585 March 3 1980 FACTS

Feliciano de guzman v judge teofilo guadiz gr no l

This preview shows page 41 - 43 out of 122 pages.

Feliciano de Guzman v. Judge Teofilo Guadiz G.R. No. L-48585, March 3, 1980 FACTS: Petitioner Feliciano de Guzman filed a petition for the probate of a will of Catalina Bajacan instituting the petitioner as sole heir and as executor. However, private respondents moved to dismiss contending that all the real properties of Catalina are now owned by them by virtue of a Deed of Donation Intervivos. The respondent judge dismissed the motion until the parties have presented their evidence. A motion for the appointment of a special administrator was filed by the petitioner alleging that the unresolved motion to dismiss would delay the probate of the will and the appointment of an executor. However, it was denied. ISSUE: May a special administrator be appointed? HELD: YES. Section 1, Rule 80 of the Rules of Court states that the probate court may appoint a special administrator should there be a delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration occasioned by any cause including an appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a will. Subject to this qualification, the appointment of a special administrator lies in the discretion of the Court. It may include any cause general administration that cannot be immediately granted, a special administrator may be appointed to collect and preserve the property of the deceased. The facts justifying the appointment of a special administrator are: (1) Delay in the hearing of the petition for the probate of the will; and (2) The basis of the private respondents' claim to the estate of Catalina Bajacan and opposition to the probate of the will is a deed of donation. There is an immediate need to file an action for the annulment of such deed of donation in behalf of the estate but it was dismissed. In the meantime, there is nobody to sue in order to protect the interest of the estate considering that the probate of the will and the appointment of an executor will take time. It also appears that the properties consisting of 80 hectares of first class agricultural land produce P50,000 worth of
Image of page 41
palay each harvest twice a year. Hence, there is an immediate need for a special administrator to protect the interests of the estate as regards the products. Julito Relucio v. Judge Ramon San Jose G.R. No. L-4783, May 26, 1952 FACTS: Petitioner Julita Relucio was appointed administratrix of the estate of Felipe Relucio. However, upon petitioner, the court appointed Rolando Relucio as administrator in substitution of the petitioner. Rolando filed a motion declaring petitioner in contempt of court for failing to deliver to him, after demand, all papers, documents, titles and properties of the estate under her administration. However, it was denied and appointed Equitable Banking Corp. as special administrator pending the appeal of the petitioner. The court ruled that the appeal suspended the appointment of Rolando Relucio as administrator but it justified the appointment of the special administrator by arguing that, if the petitioner has to remain as administratrix during the pendency of
Image of page 42
Image of page 43

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 122 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture