REMEDIES OF AN UNPAID CREDITOR 2.

Rescission in the case of preterition of

AFTER THE EXTRAJUDICIAL compulsory heir in partition tainted with
SETTLEMENT OF THE ESTATE: bad faith.
If the excluded party is an unpaid 3. Reconveyance of real property within
creditor of the estate, his remedies 10 years which is based on an implied or
are: constructive trust.
1. To institute a claim by proceeding 4. Action to annul a deed of extrajudicial
against the bond within 2 years after the settlement on the ground of fraud which
distribution and settlement of the estate should be file within 4 years from
of the deceased (Rule 74 Sec. 4). After discovery of fraud.
the lapse of the 2-year period, the
5. Petition for Relief on the grounds of
creditor may no longer proceed against
fraud, accident, mistake, excusable
the bond but can institute an ordinary
negligence 60 days after the petitioner
action against the distributes within the
learns of the judgment, final order or
statute of limitations;
other proceeding to be set aside, and not
2. To file petition for letters of more than 6 months after such judgment
administration and file an action to annul or final order was entered.
a deed of extrajudicial settlement on the
ground of fraud within 4 years from the
discovery of fraud; and,
3. To institute a claim by proceeding
against the real estate belonging to the
deceased, notwithstanding any transfers
of real estate that may have been made.

REMEDIES OF AN EXCLUDED HEIR

AFTER EXTRAJUDICIAL
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE:
1. Within 2 years:
a. Compel settlement of the estate
if an heir or other person has been
unduly deprived of his lawful
participation in the estate; or
b. File a claim against the bond or
the real estate or both if there are
unpaid debts (Sec. 4 Rule 74)
A foreign will can be given legal effects in What are the exceptions to the rule
our jurisdiction. Article 816 of the Civil that a money claim not filed within the
Code states that the will of an alien who statute of non claims is barred
is abroad produces effect in the forever? In the following cases, a
Philippines if made in accordance with money claim can still be filed even
the formalities prescribed by law of the beyond the period stated in the notice:
place where he resides, or according to
1. Tardy claim – at any time before an
the formalities observed in his country
order of distribution is entered, on the
(Palaganas v. Palaganas, G.R. No.
application of a creditor who has failed to
169144, January 26, 2011).
file his claim within the statute of non-
The allegation that there was a genuine claims, the court, may, for cause shown
effort to settle the estate amicably before and, on such terms, as are equitable,
the filling of the petition is not required by allow such claim to be filed within a time
the Rules. Besides, a petition for not exceeding 1 month from the order of
issuance of letters of administration may the court allowing the filing of such
be contested on either of two grounds: particular claim (ROC, Rule 86, Sec. 2).
(1) the incompetency of the person for
2. Counterclaim – where an executor or
whom letters are prayed therein; and
administrator commences an action or
(2) the contestant's own right to the
prosecutes an action already
administration. (Sec. 4, Rule 79).
commenced by the deceased in his
Is the determination of the status of lifetime, the debtor may set forth as
the legal heirs in a separate special counterclaims the claims he has against
proceeding a prerequisite to an the decedent (ROC, Rule 86, Sec. 5).
ordinary suit instituted by the legal
heirs for the recovery of ownership
and possession of property instituted ***The opposition should be denied. The
by the legal heirs? Supreme Court has held that Art. 151 of
the Family Code, which requires that in
- No. Unless there is already a pending
suits involving the members of the same
special proceeding for the settlement of
family there must be a verified allegation
the decedent's estate or for the
of earnest efforts at compromise, applies
determination of heirship, the compulsory
only to suits or ordinary civil actions but
or intestate heirs may commence an
not to a special proceeding, like a petition
ordinary civil action to declare the nullity
for settlement of estate, which is simply
of a deed or instrument, and for the
for the establishment of a status, a right,
recovery of property, or any other action
or a particular fact. (Manalo v. CA, G.R.
in the enforcement of their ownership
No. 129242, 16 Jan. 2001) (Divina, 2024)
rights acquired by virtue of succession,
without the necessity of a prior and
separate judicial declaration of their
status as such (Treyes v. Larlar, G.R. *** The publication of the settlement does
232579, 2020). not constitute constructive notice to the
heirs who had no knowledge or did not
take part in it because the same was after such other notice to interested
notice after the fact of execution. The persons as the court may direct. The
requirement of publication is intended for court may proceed summarily without the
the protection of creditors and was never appointment of an executor or
intended to deprive heirs of their lawful administrator, and without delay, grant, if
participation in the decedent's estate. proper, allowance of the will, if any, to
determine the persons legally entitled to
participate in the estate, and to apportion
*** Extrajudicial settlement of an estate of and divide it among them after payment
a deceased is allowed only when the of such debts of the estate as the court
deceased left no last will and testament shall then find to be due. The order of
and all debts, if any, are paid. partition if it involves real estate, shall be
recorded by the proper register's office.
(Sec. 2, Rule 74, ROC, as amended)
*** If the decedent left no will and no
debts, and the heirs are all of age, the
parties may, without securing letters of *** The jurisdictional facts in a petition
administration, divide the estate among for probate are:
themselves by means of a public
(1) that a person died leaving a will;
instrument or by pending action for
partition and shall file a bond with the (2) in case of a resident, that he resided
register of deeds in an amount equivalent within the territorial jurisdiction of the
to the value of the personal property court; and
involved as certified to under oath by the
(3) in the case of a non- resident, that he
parties concerned. The fact of extra-
left an estate within such territorial
judicial settlement shall be published in a
jurisdiction. The jurisdictional facts shall
newspaper of general circulation once a
be contained in a petition for allowance of
week for three consecutive weeks in the
will.
province.
*** The Supreme Court has held that the
writs and processes of a probate court
*** Since the value of Rene’s estate does cannot extend outside the Philippines.
not exceed P 10,000.00, the remedy Here XYZ was in Hong Kong and thus
available is to proceed to undertake a beyond the jurisdiction of the Philippine
summary settlement of estates of small probate court. Moreover the probate
value by filing a petition in court and upon court should have dismissed the petition
hearing, which shall be held not less than at the onset. In a petition for probate of a
one (1) month nor more than three (3) will where the testator is a non-resident,
months from the date of the last the petition should allege the
publication of a notice which shall be jurisdictional fact that the testator left
published once a week for three (3) estate within the Philippines. (Cuenco v.
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-24742, 26
general circulation in the province and Oct. 1973; Riguera, 2022)
*** Preterition applies only to inadvertent protect his or her interests in the estate.
omission in the will. Here there was no Indeed, the legal heirs of a decedent
inadvertent omission because Czarina should not be rendered helpless to
mentioned Marco in the will and made an rightfully protect their interests in the
ineffective disinheritance. Hence the will estate while there is yet no special
was valid and should be given effect to proceeding.
the extent that it does not impair Marco’s
legitime.
*** Similarly, in Mayor v. Tiu the Court
I would also argue that during the probate
ruled that the probate court cannot
proper stage, the probate court can pass
adjudicate title to properties part of the
only upon the extrinsic, not the intrinsic,
estate which are equally claimed to
validity of the will. When the court
belong to outside parties. What it can
declared the will void for depriving Marco
determine is whether the properties in
of his legitime, it was passing upon the
question should or should not be
intrinsic validity of the will.
included in the inventory or list of
properties overseen by the administrator.
More, the Court in Agtarap v. Agtarap
*** The rule is: unless there is a pending
held that if there is a dispute involving a
special proceeding for the settlement of
property of an estate which is being
the decedent's estate or for the
claimed by third parties, an ordinary
determination of heirship, the compulsory
action may be filed before a court of
or intestate heirs may commence an
general jurisdiction, that is, the regional
ordinary civil action to declare the nullity
trial court, for a final determination of
of a deed or instrument, and for recovery
conflicting claims over the property, as in
of property, or any other action in the
this case.
enforcement of their ownership rights
acquired by virtue of succession, without
the necessity of a prior and separate
***In Pastor, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, the
judicial declaration of their status as
Court explained that, as a rule, the
such. The ruling of the trial court shall
question of ownership was an
only be in relation to the cause of action
extraneous matter which the probate
of the ordinary civil action, i.e., the
court could not resolve with finality. Thus,
nullification of a deed or instrument, and
for the purpose of determining whether a
recovery or reconveyance of property,
certain property should, or should not, be
which ruling is binding only between and
included in the inventory of estate
among the parties.
properties, the probate court may pass
upon the title thereto, but such
determination is provisional, not
A prior declaration of heirship in a special
conclusive, and is subject to the final
proceeding should not be required before
decision in a separate action to resolve
an heir may assert successional rights in
title. It is a well-settled rule that a probate
an ordinary civil action aimed only to
court or one in charge of proceedings,
whether testate or intestate, cannot signifies that the properties must be
adjudicate or determine title to properties known to the administrator to belong to
claimed to be part of the estate but which the decedent or are in her possession as
are equally claimed to belong to outside the administrator. Section 1 allows no
parties. It can only determine whether exception, for the phrase true inventory
they should, or should not, be included in implies that no properties appearing to
the inventory or list of properties to be belong to the decedent can be excluded
overseen by the administrator. If there is from the inventory, regardless of their
no dispute, well and good; but if there is, being in the possession of another
then the parties, the administrator and person or entity.
the opposing parties have to resort to an
ordinary action for a final determination of
the conflicting claims of title because the ***Section 1 of Rule 74 does not preclude
probate court cannot do so. the heirs from instituting administration
proceedings, even if the estate has no
debts or obligation, if they do not desire
***Jurisprudence dictates that the to resort for good reasons to an ordinary
determination of who are the legal heirs action of partition. While section 1 allows
of the deceased must be made in the the heirs to divide the estate among
proper special proceedings in court, and themselves as they may see fit, or to
not in an ordinary suit for recovery of resort to an ordinary action of partition, it
ownership and possession of property. does not compel them to do so if they
This must take precedence over the have good reasons to take a different
action for recovery of possession and course of action. Said section is not
ownership. The Court has consistently mandatory or compulsory as may be
ruled that the trial court cannot make a gleaned from the use made therein of the
declaration of heirship in the civil action word may. If the intention were otherwise
for the reason that such a declaration can the framer of the rule would have
only be made in a special proceeding. employed the word shall as was done in
other provisions that are mandatory in
It is then decisively clear that the
character.
declaration of heirship can be made only
in a special proceeding inasmuch as the
petitioners here are seeking the
***The publication of the settlement does
establishment of a status or right.
not constitute constructive notice to the
heirs who had no knowledge or did not
take part in it because the same was
*** Section 1, Rule 83 of the Rules of
notice after the fact of execution. The
Court requires the inclusion of all the real
requirement of publication is geared for
and personal properties of the decedent
the protection of creditors and was never
in the inventory. However, the word all is
intended to deprive heirs of their lawful
qualified by the phrase which has come
participation in the decedent's estate. In
into his possession or knowledge, which
this connection, the records of the
present case confirm that respondents under the claim that the action is for the
never signed either of the settlement declaration of the nullity of extrajudicial
documents, having discovered their settlement of estate and sale, all of the
existence only shortly before the filing of parties who executed the same should
the present complaint. Following Rule 74, be impleaded for a complete resolution of
these extrajudicial settlements do not the case.
bind respondents, and the partition made
without their knowledge and consent is
invalid insofar as they are concerned. *** WON a prior determination of the
status as a legal or compulsory heir in
a separate special proceeding is a
*** Hence, prior to partition, a sale of a prerequisite to an ordinary civil action
definite portion of common property seeking for the protection and
requires the consent of all co-owners enforcement of ownership rights?
because it operates to partition the land
The rule is: unless there is a pending
with respect to the co-owner selling his or
special proceeding for the settlement of
her share. The co-owner or seller is
the decedent’s estate for the
already marking which portion should
determination of heirship, the compulsory
redound to his or her autonomous
or intestate heirs may commence an
ownership upon future partition.
ordinary civil action to declare the nullity
of a deed or instrument, and for recovery
of property, or any other action in the
*** In actions for reconveyance of the
enforcement of their ownership rights
property predicated on the fact that the
acquired by virtue of succession, without
conveyance complained of was null and
the necessity of a prior and separate
void ab initio, a claim of prescription of
judicial declaration of their status as
action would be unavailing. "The action
such.
or defense for the declaration of the
inexistence of a contract does not
prescribe." Neither could laches be
*** Not all rights to property and incidents
invoked in the case at bar. Laches is a
thereof, such as titling, ought to be
doctrine in equity and our courts are
preceded by a declaration of heirship,
basically courts of law and not courts of
albeit supposedly traced to a single
equity.
decedent and original titleholder.

*** In an action for reconveyance, all the

*** Heirs of Ypon v. Ricaforte, declared
owners of the property sought to be
that “the need to institute a separate
recovered are indispensable parties.
special proceeding for the determination
Thus, if reconveyance were the only
of heirship may be dispensed with for the
relief prayed for, impleading petitioners
sake of practicality, as when the parties
Macababbad and the spouses Chua and
in the civil case had voluntarily submitted
Say would suffice. On the other hand,
the issue to the trial court and already *** It is significant to stress that the
presented their evidence regarding the jurisdiction of the RTC as a probate court
issue of heirship,” and “the trial court had relates only to matters having to do with
consequently rendered judgment upon the settlement of the estate and probate
the issues it defined during the pre-trial” of a will of a deceased person, and does
not extend to the determination of a
question of ownership that arises during
*** an oral partition may be valid and the proceedings. This is true whether or
binding upon the heirs; there is no law not the property is alleged to belong to
that requires partition among heirs to be the estate, unless:
in writing to be valid.
(1) the claimants to the property are all
heirs of the deceased and they agree to
submit the question for determination by
*** Even assuming arguendo that the the probate or administration court and
unregistered Deed of Extrajudicial the interests of third parties are not
Settlement was the only piece of prejudiced;
evidence provided by respondent Leonor
to establish her interest over the subject (2) the purpose is to determine whether
property, the fact that the said Deed of or not certain properties should be
Extrajudicial Settlement was not included in the inventory, in which case
registered before the ROD does not strip the probate or administration court may
away the document’s evidentiary value decide prima facie the ownership of the
with respect to respondent Leonor’s property, but such determination is not
status and interest over the subject final and is without prejudice to the right
property. of interested parties to ventilate the
question of ownership in a proper action.
Otherwise put, the determination is
*** Since registration serves as provisional, not conclusive, and is
constructive notice to third persons, an subject to the final decision in a
oral partition by the heirs is valid if no separate action to resolve title by a
creditors, are affected. Moreover, even court of competent jurisdiction.
the requirement of a written
memorandum under the statute of frauds
does not apply to partitions effected by
*** In our jurisdiction, the rue is that
the heirs where no creditors are involved
there can be no valid partition among
considering that such transaction is not a
the heirs until after the will has been
conveyance of property resulting in
probated.
change of ownership but merely a
designation and segregation of that part
which belongs to each heir.
*** The probate court cannot inquire into the estate of the testator. The cases cited
the intrinsic validity of the will or the by petitioner are of such nature. In fact, in
disposition of the estate by the testator. most jurisdictions, courts cannot
Thus, due execution is "whether the entertain a petition for probate of the will
testator, being of sound mind, freely of a living testator under the principle of
executed the will in accordance with the ambulatory nature of wills.
formalities prescribed by law" as
mandated by Articles 805 and 806 of the
Civil Code. *** In order that a person may be allowed
to intervene in a probate proceeding he
must have an interest in the estate, or in
*** Whether or not known heirs of the the will, or in the property to be affected
testator are still entitled to personal by it either as executor or as a claimant
notice despite the publication and of the estate and an interested party has
posting of the notice of the hearing. been defined as one who would be
benefited by the estate such as an heir or
one who has a claim against the estate
YES. The Court held that notice to the like a creditor.
designated and known heirs, devisees
and legatees under Section 4, Rule 76 of
the Rules of Court is mandatory; *** According to the Rules, notice is
Publication of notice of hearing is not required to be personally given to known
sufficient when the places of residence of heirs, legatees, and devisees of the
the heirs, legatees, and devisees are testator. Besides, assuming arguendo
known. that petitioners are entitled to be so
notified, the purported infirmity is cured
Under Sec. 3, publication of the notice of
by the publication of the notice. After all,
hearing shall be done upon the delivery
personal notice upon the heirs is a
of the will, or filing of the petition for
matter of procedural convenience and
allowance of the will in the court having
not a jurisdictional requisite.
jurisdiction. On the other hand, personal
notice under Sec. 4 shall be served to the
designated or known heirs, legatees and
*** According to the Rules, notice is
devisees, and the executor or co-
required to be personally given to known
executor, at their residence, if such are
heirs, legatees, and devisees of the
known.
testator. A perusal of the will shows that
respondent was instituted as the sole heir
of the decedent. Petitioners, as nephews
*** Ordinarily, probate proceedings are
and nieces of the decedent, are neither
instituted only after the death of the
compulsory nor testate heirs who are
testator, so much so that, after approving
entitled to be notified of the probate
and allowing the will, the court proceeds
proceedings under the Rules.
to issue letters testamentary and settle
Respondent had no legal obligation to
mention petitioners in the petition for take judicial notice of them, the petitioner
probate, or to personally notify them of in the probate proceedings has the
the same. burden to prove evidence of such foreign
law.

*** In the appointment of the

administrator of the estate of a deceased *** It is well settled that a probate court
person, the principal consideration cannot arbitrarily and without sufficient
reckoned with is the interest in said reason disregard the preferential rights of
estate of the one to be appointed as the surviving spouse to the
administrator. This is the same administration of the estate of the
consideration which Section 6 of Rule 78 deceased spouse. But, if the person
takes into account in establishing the enjoying such preferential rights is
order of preference in the appointment of unsuitable the court may appoint
administrators for the estate. The another person.
underlying assumption behind this rule is
that those who will reap the benefit of a
wise, speedy and economical *** Publication is notice to the whole
administration of the estate, or, on the world that the proceeding has for its
other hand, suffer the consequences of object to bar indefinitely all who might be
waste, improvidence or mismanagement, minded to make an objection of any sort
have the highest interest and most against the right sought to be
influential motive to administer the estate established. It is the publication of such
correctly. notice that brings in the whole world as a
party in the case and vests the court with
Here, petitioners cannot assert their
jurisdiction to hear and decide it. Thus,
preferential right to administer the estate
even though petitioners were not
or that their choice of administrator
mentioned in the petition for probate,
should be preferred because they are the
they eventually became parties thereto
nearest of kin of the decedent. It is worth
as a consequence of the publication of
emphasizing that the preference given to
the notice of hearing.
the surviving spouse, next of kin, and
creditors is not absolute, and that the
appointment of an administrator
greatly depends on the attendant facts *** It is well settled that a probate court
and circumstances of each case. cannot arbitrarily and without sufficient
reason disregard the preferential rights of
the surviving spouse to the
administration of the estate of the
*** A person who seeks to reprobate a will
deceased spouse. But, if the person
executed in a foreign country must prove
enjoying such preferential rights is
the laws and procedure of that foreign
unsuitable the court may appoint another
country on wills. As foreign laws do not
person. The determination of a person's
prove themselves and our courts do not
suitability for the office of administrator
rests, to a great extent, in the sound interest in the estate, and there is no
judgment of the court exercising the other modality under the Rules by which
power of appointment and such judgment such interests can be protected.
will not be Interfered with on appeal
unless it appears affirmatively that the
court below was in error. *** The courts have always respected the
right to which a testator enjoys to
determine who is most suitable to settle
*** The Court stressed that the his testamentary affairs, and his solemn
appointment of co-administrators is selection should not lightly be
allowed only as an exception, usually disregarded. After the admission of a will
when different factions or opposing to probate, the courts will not name a
interests must be represented, or when better executor for the testator nor
the estate is particularly large or disqualify, by a judicial veto, the widow or
complex. friend or other person selected in the will,
except upon strict proof of the statutory
grounds of incompetency.
*** An interested party, in estate
proceedings, is one who would be
benefited in the estate, such as an heir, *** Not every criminal act involves
or one who has a claim against the moral turpitude," and that ''as to what
estate, such as a creditor. Also, in estate crime involves moral turpitude is for
proceedings, the phrase next of kin refers the Supreme Court to determine.
to those whose relationship with the Indeed, it is well-settled that
decedent is such that they are entitled to "embezzlement, forgery, robbery, and
share in the estate as distributees. swindling are crimes which denote
moral turpitude and, as a general rule,
all crimes of which fraud is an element
*** In the same manner that the Rules on are looked on as involving moral
Special Proceedings do not provide a turpitude. The "failure to file an
creditor or any person interested in the income tax return" is not a crime
estate, the right to participate in every involving moral turpitude as the mere
aspect of the testate or intestate omission is already a violation
proceedings, but instead provides for regardless of the fraudulent intent or
specific instances when such persons willfulness of the individual.
may accordingly act in those
proceedings, we deem that while there is
no general right to intervene on the part *** When the law speaks of “next of
of the petitioners, they may be allowed to kin,” the reference is to those who are
seek certain prayers or reliefs from the entitled, under the statute of
intestate court not explicitly provided for distribution, to the decedent’s
under the Rules, if the prayer or relief property; one whose relationship is
sought is necessary to protect their such that he is entitled to share in the
estate as distributed, or, in short, an even before the probate court causes
heir. notice to be served upon all interested
parties pursuant to section 3, Rule 79
of the Revised Rules of Court.
*** The preference under Section 6, Rule
No. Before a court may acquire
78 of the Rules of Court for the next of kin
jurisdiction over the case for the
refers to the appointment of a regular
probate of a will and the
administrator, and not of a special
administration of the properties left by
administrator, as the appointment of the
a deceased person, the application
latter lies entirely in the discretion of the
must allege the residence of the
court, and is not appealable.
deceased and other indispensable
facts or circumstances and that the
applicant is the executor named in the
*** Not being appealable, the only will or is the person who had custody
remedy against the appointment of a of the will to be probated.
special administrator is Certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, requiring a
showing of grave abuse of discretion.
Probate court must cause notice
Appointment of a special
through publication of the petition
administrator is an interlocutory
after it receives the same. The
order.
purpose of this notice is to bring all
the interested persons within the
court's jurisdiction so that the
*** In settlement proceedings, appeal judgment therein becomes binding on
may be taken from an: all the world.
A. order appointing a special
administrator;
*** It has been held that an "interested
B. order appointing an administrator; person" is one who would be benefited by
C. order of an administrator to recover the estate, such as an heir, or one who
property of the estate; has a claim against the estate, such as a
creditor, and whose interest is material
D. order to include or exclude property and direct, not merely incidental or
from the estate contingent.

*** WON a probate court may appoint *** The appointment of a special
a special administratrix and issue a administrator is justified only when
writ of possession of alleged there is delay in granting letters,
properties of a decedent for the testamentary (in case the decedent
preservation of the estate in a petition leaves behind a will) or administrative
for the settlement of the intestate (in the event that the decedent leaves
estate of the said deceased person
behind no will, as in the Petition at bar) the parties in the administration as to be
occasioned by any cause. The the basis of distribution.
principal object of the appointment of
a temporary administrator is to
preserve the estate until it can pass *** The requirement of an
into the hands of a person fully administrator’s bond is mandatory; it
authorized to administer it for the secures the performance of the
benefit of creditors and heirs. administrator’s duties and is a
qualification for the office. Failure to
post bond justifies revocation of the
*** The preference under Section 6, appointment.
Rule 78 of the Rules of Court for the
next of kin refers to the appointment
of a regular administrator, and not of a *** The preference accorded by
special administrator, as the Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of
appointment of the latter lies entirely Court to the surviving spouse refers
in the discretion of the court, and is to the appointment of a regular
not appealable. administrator or administratrix, not to
that of a special administrator, and
that the order appointing the latter lies
*** Jurisprudence teaches us that the within the discretion of the probate
appointment of a special court, and is not appealable.
administrator lies within the
discretion of the court. “As the law
does not say who shall be appointed *** We ruled that before a court may
as special administrator and the acquire jurisdiction over the case for the
qualifications the appointee must probate of a will and the administration of
have, the judge or court has discretion the properties left by a deceased person,
in the selection of the person to be the application must allege the residence
appointed, discretion which must be of the deceased and other indispensable
sound, that is, not whimsical or facts or circumstances and that the
contrary to reason, justice or equity. applicant is the executor named in the will
or is the person who had custody of the
will to be probated.
*** The appointment of Special
Administrator, the probate court does not
determine the shares in the decedent’s *** In appointing a special
estate, but merely appoints who is administrator, the probate court is not
entitled to administer the estate. The limited to the grounds for
issue of heirship is one to be determined incompetence laid down in Rule 78,
in the decree of distribution, and the Section 1 and the order of preference
finding of the court on the relationship of provided in Rule 78, Section 6
pertinent to regular administrators.
The appointment of a special in the Rules at its discretion, such that
administrator rests on the sound the need to first pass upon and
discretion of the probate court. As resolve the issues of fitness or
held in Ocampo v. Ocampo, this unfitness and the application of the
discretion must be exercised with order of preference under Section 6 of
reason, guided by the directives of Rule 78, as would be proper in the
equity, justice and legal principles. case of a regular administrator, do not
obtain. As long as the discretion is
exercised without grave abuse, and is
*** The Rules of Court does not based on reason, equity, justice, and
mention foreign citizenship as a legal principles, interference by
ground for incompetence to be an higher courts is unwarranted.
administrator. We emphasize that
Rule 78, Section 1, which may be
applied to special administrators, *** Mere demonstration of interest in
requires residency in the Philippines, the estate to be settled does not ipso
not Filipino citizenship. facto entitle an interested person to
co-administration thereof. Neither
does squabbling among the heirs nor
*** A special administrator before adverse interests necessitate the
entering upon the duties of his trust discounting of the order of preference
shall give a bond, in such sum as the set forth in Section 6, Rule 78. Indeed,
court directs, conditioned that he will in the appointment of administrator of
make and return a true inventory of the estate of a deceased person, the
the goods, chattels, rights, credits, principal consideration reckoned with
and estate of the deceased which is the interest in said estate of the one
come to his possession or knowledge, to be appointed as administrator.
and that he will truly account for such
as are received by him when required
by the court, and will deliver the same *** he usage of “all” in Sec 1, Rule 83
to the person appointed executor or means that no properties appearing to
administrator, or to such other person belong to the decedent can be
as may be authorized to receive them. excluded from the inventory. However,
the word “all” is qualified by the
phrase which has come into his
It has long been settled that the possession or knowledge, which
selection or removal of special signifies decedent’s properties or are
administrators is not governed by the in possession as the administrator.
rules regarding the selection or
removal of regular administrators. The
probate court may appoint or remove *** The right of an executor or
special administrators based on administrator to the possession and
grounds other than those enumerated management of the real and personal
properties of the deceased is not disposing of the estate; and he shall
absolute and can only be exercised render such further accounts as the
"so long as it is necessary for the court may require until the estate is
payment of the debts and expenses of wholly settled.
administration.

*** In order to entitle the executor or

*** Administration expenses should administrator to additional
be those which are necessary for the compensation, the estate must be
management of the estate, for large, the settlement extraordinarily
protecting it against destruction or difficult, and a high degree of capacity
deterioration, and, possibly, for the demonstrated by him. The amount of
production of fruits. They are his fee in special cases under the
expenses entailed for the preservation Rules is a matter largely in the
and productivity of the estate and its discretion of the probate court, which
management for purposes of will not be disturbed on appeal, except
liquidation, payment of debts, and for an abuse of discretion. Whether or
distribution of the residue among the not the probate court abused its
persons entitled thereto. discretion would depend on the
attendant facts.
Obviously, those expenses
redounded to the benefit of the co-
owners. They were necessary for the
preservation and use of the family
residence. As a result of those
expenses, the co-owners, including
the three oppositors, would be able to
use the family home in comfort,
convenience and security. We hold
that the probate court did not err in
approving the use of the income of the
estate to defray those expenses.

*** Every executor or administrator

shall render an account of his
administration within one (1) year
from the time of receiving letters
testamentary or of administration,
unless the court otherwise directs
because of extensions of time for
presenting claims against, or paying
the debts of, the estate, or for