Republic of the Philippines On January 29, 1966, the Court issued an order appointing Gregoria

SUPREME COURT Aranzanso as regular administrator and relieving Araceli A. Pilapil as

SECOND DIVISION This incident refers to the appointment of the regular

IN THE MATTER OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE This proceeding was instituted upon petition of the
JULIANA REYES, PAULINA SANTOS DE PARREÑO, special late Simplicio Santos on November 25, 1957, after
adminstratrix, the death of the decedent on October 21, same
vs. year. On August 22, 1959, Simplicio Santos was
GREGORIA ARANZANSO, appellant. appointed as Special Administrator with the bond of
P5,000.00, and acted as such until his death on July
1, 1962. A special proceeding was likewise instituted
&
for the settlement of his estate (Sp. Proc. No. 50994,
of this Court) by persons claiming to be the children
ABAD SANTOS, J.: of Simplicio Santos, in which Dominador Santos and
Zenaida Diaz Vda, de Santos were appointed as
This case is about the all-too-familiar problem as to who shall administrator and administratrix, respectively. On
administer the estate of the deceased. It exposes human nature in its August 1, 1962, Araceli Pilapil was appointed
most naked form — acquisitive. special administratrix of this intestate upon petition
of the late Aurora Santos and Paulina Santos. It
Juliana Reyes died intestate. Her substantial estate is still being appears that Araceli A. Pilapil has no relation to the
settled in Special Proceedings No. 34354 of the Court of First decedent, except as attorney-in-fact of Paulina
Instance of Manila, Branch IV. The settlement has spawned a Santos.
number of litigation which has reached this Court and includes not
only the instant case but also other cases with the following docket On August 3, 1963, Filomena Santos de Lagunera
numbers: 23828, 26940 and 27130. through counsel, filed a motion for the appointment
of a regular administrator. On December 13, 1963,
The estate had only special administrators until Gregoria Aranzanso this Court in an order issued directed the parties to
who claims to be a first cousin of the decedent asked that she be show cause why this case should not be set for
appointed regular administrator. Her motion provoked counter hearing for the appointment of a regular
motions, oppositions, replies, rebuttal and rejoinder which take up administrator. Because of the length of time that had
120 pages of the printed record on appeal and which demonstrate already elapsed since the filing or institution of this
the zeal of the various counsel in espousing their clients claims to proceeding on November 25, 1957, without a regular
the estate which as aforesaid is substantial. administrator having been appointed, this Court
issued an order on October 4, 1965, ordering the
setting of the case for hearing on October 11, 1965,

Page 1 of 5
for the appointment of the regular administrator or while the heirs of Simplicio Santos adopted also
administratrix. some of the exhibits presented by the oppositors
and adduced four (4) exhibits, to support their
On October 9, 1965, Paulina Santos filed a motion contention.
praying that she be appointed as regular
administratrix, but in the interim apparently because It appears from the evidence presented that the
she is out of the country, asked that the special properties under administration are the paraphernal
administratrix Araceli A. Pilapil be appointed in the properties of Juliana Reyes, but there are also
meantime. On October 9, 1965, the surviving evidence that the late Simplicio Santos, through a
spouse of the late Simplicio Santos, Zenaida Diaz general power of attorney, allegedly sold some lots
Vda. de Santos, and her son, Simplicio Santos, Jr., owned by the decedent Juliana Reyes Santos to
filed a motion praying the Court that Atty. Olimpio Paulina Santos, Dominador Santos, Eduvigis
Capalungan be appointed as the regular Santos, and a certain Jose F. Sugay. All these lots
administrator. In the hearing on October 11, 1965, numbering six in all were later on reconveyed by the
the oppositors Consuelo and Pacita Pasion aforementioned alleged vendees to Simplicio
proposed the appointment of the former as the Santos. The evidence further shows that Paulina
regular administratrix although in subsequent Santos and the late Simplicio Santos, while this
hearings withdrew in favor of Gregorio Aranzanso. proceeding had already been instituted and in utter
On October 12, 1965, oppositor Gregorio Aranzanso disregard of the law, executed on May 12, 1958,
proposed that she or her son-in-law Manuel Cariaga "Extra-Judicial Partition with Sale" covering a
be appointed as the regular administrator or property of the decedent in Baguio City. The
administratrix, as the case may be. The oppositors oppositors claim that these sales are fictitious and
are the nearest surviving relatives of the decedent would, together with the said extra-judicial partition,
Juliana Reyes who died without issue, being first automatically disqualify Paulina Santos, Dominador
cousin. In the hearing of October 15, 1965, persons Santos and Atty. Olimpio Kapalungan to be
claiming to be the children of Simplicio Santos appointed as regular administrator or administratrix
proposed the appointment of Dominador Santos as of this intestate as obviously they have adverse
the regular administrator. interests against the estate. If appointed as regular
administrator or administratrix, naturally they will not
Hearings were held and the parties adduced their institute proceedings to recover those properties
respective evidence to support their contentions, but which were illegally transferred or sold. This leaves
only the oppositors presented oral evidence to show only oppositor Gregoria Aranzanso as the person
that the properties under administration are the most qualified to be appointed regular administratrix.
paraphernal or exclusive properties of the decedent
Juliana Reyes. To further support their contention WHEREFORE, the Court hereby appoints Gregoria
the oppositors presented numerous exhibits Aranzanso as the regular administratrix of this
consisting of certified true copies of torrens titles intestate estate with a bond of P15,000.00, and
issued in the name of the decedent Juliana Reyes. upon submission and approval thereof, let letters of
Paulina Santos adopted most of these exhibits administration issue. ....
presented by the oppositors and objected to some,

Page 2 of 5
Motions for reconsideration of the order were filed but the presiding (5) Revoking the previous order of
judge held firm "considering that most of the movants have adverse May 9, 1966 allowing the regular
interests against this intestate estate." (Order of February 16,1966, administratrix to make extensive
pp- 140-141, Record on Appeal.) repairs on the building belonging to
the estate situated at the corners of
But the opposition was persistent; it refused to give in. And so on Barbosa and R. Hidalgo Streets,
June 20, 1966, the court which incidentally was presided by a Quiapo, Manila, and ordering her to
different judge issued an order which reads as follows: 1äwphï1.ñët return to the estate the sum of
P28,040.00 which she was
authorized to withdraw from the
On May 26, 1966, the petitioner Paulina R. Santos
funds of the estate deposited with
de Parreño filed an omnibus motion for an
order: 1äwphï1.ñët the Philippine Trust Company.

(1) Declaring that the oppositors In view of the decision of the Honorable Supreme
Court rendered on February 28, 1966 in S.C. G.R.
Gregoria Aranzanso, Demetria
No. L-23828, 'Paulina Santos and Aurora Santos vs.
Ventura, Consuelo Pasion and
Gregoria Aranzanso, et al,' which decision declared
Pacita Pasion have no right to
that the oppositors Gregoria Aranzanso, Demetria
intervene in this intestate estate
proceeding; Ventura, Consuelo Pasion and Pacita Pasion are
without right to intervene as heirs in the settlement
of the estate in question and that said oppositors
(2) Ordering Gregoria Aranzanso were enjoined permanently from withdrawing any
and Demetria Ventura to return to sum from the estate in the concept of the heirs and
the estate the sum of P14,000.00 from intervening in this proceeding, and which
received by them with the authority judgment of the Supreme Court has already become
of this Court; final and executory, the oppositors aforementioned,
more specially the administratrix Gregoria
(3) Revoking the appointment of Aranzanso, have lost their right to intervene in this
Gregoria Aranzanso as regular case and the latter to perform any act of
administratrix and ordering her to administration in the present proceeding. As a
render an accounting of her matter of fact, if we have to construe strictly the
administration; mandate of the aforementioned judgment of the
appellate Court, it would seem that the oppositors
(4) Appointing the petitioner Paulina never had any right at all to intervene in this case.
R. Santos de Parreno special Such being the case, the Court after weighing
administratrix of the intestate estate carefully the circumstances surrounding this case,
of her late mother, Juliana Reyes de has arrived at the conclusion that the
Santos; and aforementioned decision of the appellate Court has
stripped off the oppositors of any semblance of

Page 3 of 5
 personality which they may have acquired in this REYES AND THE REVOCATION OF HER
instant proceeding. APPOINTMENT IS CONTRARY TO LAW.

WHEREFORE, and finding the omnibus motion filed There is merit in the appeal, As indicated in the lone assignment of
by Paulina R. Santos de Parreño on May 26, 1966 error, the only issue in this appeal, is whether or not the lower court
to be well- taken, the same is hereby granted. was justified in revoking the appointment of Gregoria Aranzanso as
the administrator of the intestate estate of Juliana Reyes. Alien to the
The oppositors Gregorio Aranzanso, Demetria issue is the question of preference — whether it should be Gregoria
Ventura, Consuelo Pasion and Pacita Pasion are Aranzanso who is a first cousin of the decedent or Paulina Santos de
declared to be without any right to intervene in this Parreño who is an adopted child of the decedent — in receiving
intestate proceeding and, henceforth they should not letters of administration.
be allowed to take part therein.
It stands to reason that the appellant having been appointed regular
GREGORIA ARANZANSO and Demetria Ventura administrator of the intestate estate of Juliana Reyes may be
are ordered to return to the estate the sum of removed from her office but only for a cause or causes provided by
P14,000.00 which they received by virtue of the law. What is the law on removal? It is found in Rule 82, Section 2, of
order of this Court dated October 2, 1965. the Rules of Court which reads as follows: 1äwphï1.ñët

The appointment of Gregoria Aranzanso as regular Sec. 2. Court may remove or accept resignation of
administratrix pursuant to the order of this Court executor or administrator. Proceedings upon death,
dated January 29, 1966 is revoked and she is resignation, or removal.— If an executor or
ordered to render a final account of her administrator neglects to render his account and
administration within ten (10) days from receipt settle the estate according to law, or to perform an
hereof. order or judgment of the court, or a duty expressly
provided by these rules, or absconds or becomes
insane, or otherwise incapable or unsuitable to
Paulina R. Santos de Parreno is appointed special
discharge the trust, the court may remove him, or, in
administratrix of the intestate estate of the late
Juliana Reyes de Santos and upon her filing a bond its discretion, may permit him to resign. When an
in the amount of P2,000.00 and the corresponding executor or administrator dies, resigns, or is
removed the remaining executor or administrator
oath of office, letters of special administration be
may administer the trust alone, unless the court
issued to her. ....
grants letters to someone to act with him. If there is
no remaining executor or administrator,
A motion for reconsideration of the order was denied which prompted administration may be granted to any suitable
Gregoria Aranzanso to appeal the order to this Court with a lone person.
assignment of error, to wit: 1äwphï1.ñët
It is obvious that the decision of this Court, cited in the appealed
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN REMOVING THE order, that Gregoria Aranzanso, among other persons, is without
APPELLANT AS REGULAR ADMINISTRATRIX OF
THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE JULIANA

Page 4 of 5
right to intervene as heir in the settlement of the estate in question is Thereafter, this Court rendered judgment which insofar as relevant
not one of the grounds provided by the Rules of Court. reads as follows: 1äwphï1.ñët

Let it be recalled that in G.R. No. L-23828, Paulina Santos, et al. vs. Wherefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Gregoria Aranzanso, et al., 123 Phil. 160 (1966), a collateral attack hereby reversed and the order of the probate court a
on the adoption of the two girls was not allowed under the following quo sustaining the adoption, dated April 6, 1959, is
facts: affirmed. Respondents Gregoria Aranzanso and
Demetria Ventura as well as Consuelo and Pacita
When Juliana Reyes died intestate, Simplicio Santos filed in the Pasion are declared without right to intervene as
Court of First Instance of Manila a petition for the settlement of her heirs in the settlement of the intestate estate of
estate. In said petition he stated among other things that the Juliana Reyes. ....
surviving heirs of the deceased are: he, as surviving spouse, Paulina
Santos and Aurora Santos, 27 and 17 years of age, respectively. In The decision denied to Gregoria Aranzanso the right to intervene in
the same petition, he asked that he be appointed administrator of the the settlement proceedings as an heir of Juliana Reyes. But an
estate. administrator does not have to be an heir. He can be a stranger to
the deceased. In fact, in one of her motions Paulina Santos de
Gregoria Aranzanso, alleging that she is first cousin to the deceased, Parreno proposed the appointment of the Philippine National Bank
filed an opposition to the petition for appointment of administrator. as special administrator. (Record on Appeal, pp. 144-146.) We hold
For her grounds she asserted that Simplicio Santos' marriage to the that the intervention of Gregoria Aranzanso in the settlement
late Juliana Reyes was bigamous and thus void; and that the proceedings is not in the capacity of heir although she might be one
adoption of Paulina Santos and Aurora Santos was likewise void ab if her direct attack on the adoption of the two girls should succeed.
initio for want of the written consent of their parents who were then We have authorized such direct attack in G.R. No. L-26940.
living and had not abandoned them.
WHEREFORE, the order of June 20, 1966, removing Gregoria
The Court of First Instance decided the point in dispute, ruling that Aranzanso as administrator is hereby set aside and she is reinstated
the validity of the adoption in question could not be assailed as administrator of the intestate estate of Juliana Reyes. Cost
collaterally in the intestate proceedings (Sp. Proc. No. 34354). The against the appellee.
order was appealed to the Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED.
The Court of Appeals reversed the appealed order, finding instead
that the adoption was null and void ab initio due to the absence of Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro and Escolin, JJ.,
consent thereto by the natural parents of the minor children, which it concur.1äwphï1.ñët
deemed a jurisdictional defect still open to collateral attack.
Barredo (Chairman), J., is on leave.
Stating that, "The principal issue on the merits in this appeal is
whether respondents-oppositors Aranzanso and Ventura, could
assail in the settlement proceedings the adoption decree in favor of
Paulina and Aurora Santos," this Court gave a negative answer.

Page 5 of 5