Feliciano de guzman v judge teofilo guadiz gr no l

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

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