Case Digest

The Case. - PEDRO DE GUZMAN, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE ZOSIMO Z.
ANGELES, RTC BRANCH 58, MAKATI, METRO MANILA; DEPUTY SHERIFFS JOSE B. FLORA and
HONORIO SANTOS; and ELAINE G. DE GUZMAN, respondents. 162 SCRA 347, No. L-78590 June 20,
1988

Facts. - On May 5, 1987, private respondent Elaine G. de Guzman filed a petition for the
settlement of the intestate estate of Manolito de Guzman, before the Regional Trial Court of Makati,
Metro Manila.

On May 22, 1987, the private respondent filed a motion for writ of possession over five (5) —
vehicles registered under the name of Manolito de Guzman, alleged to be conjugal properties of the
de Guzman's but which are at present in the possession of the private respondent's father-in- law,
herein petitioner Pedro de Guzman. The motion stated that as co-owner and heir, the private
respondent must have the possession of said vehicles in order to preserve the assets of her late
husband. On the same day, the lower court issued an order setting for hearing the motion on May
27, 1987 directing the deputy sheriff to notify petitioner Pedro de Guzman at the expense of the
private respondent.

On May 28, 1987, the private respondent filed her "Ex-Parte Motion to Appoint Petitioner as
Special Administratrix of the Estate of Manolito de Guzman” which was granted by the lower court.
Also in another order, the lower court acted on the motion for assistance which authorized Deputy
Sheriffs Honorio Santos and Jose B. Flora together with some military men and/or policemen to
assist private respondent in preserving the subject estate.

Trouble ensued when the respondents tried to enforce the later order. The petitioner
resisted when Deputy Sheriffs Jose B. Flora and Honorio Santos tried to take the subject vehicles on
the ground that they were his personal properties.

The petitioner contends that such order is a patent nullity, the respondent court not having
acquired jurisdiction to appoint a special administratrix because the petition for the settlement of
the estate of Manolito de Guzman was not yet set for hearing and published for three consecutive
weeks, as mandated by the Rules of Court. The petitioner also stresses that the appointment of a
special administratrix constitutes an abuse of discretion for having been made without giving
petitioner and other parties an opportunity to oppose said appointment

Issue. - Whether or not a probate court may appoint a special administratrix and issue a
writ of possession of alleged properties of a decedent for the preservation of the estate in a petition
for the settlement of the intestate estate of the said deceased person even before the probate
court causes notice to be served upon all interested parties?

Held. NO. In the instant case, there is no doubt that the respondent court acquired
jurisdiction over the proceedings upon the filing of a petition for the settlement of an intestate
estate by the private respondent since the petition had alleged all the jurisdictional facts, the
residence of the deceased person, the possible heirs and creditors and the probable value of the
estate of the deceased Manolito de Guzman pursuant to Section 2, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of
Court.

Section 3, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

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.
 It is very clear from this provision that the probate court must cause notice through
publication of the petition after it receives the same. The purpose of this notice is to bring all the
interested persons within the court's jurisdiction so that the judgment therein becomes binding on
all the world. (Manalo v. Paredes, 47 Phil. 938; Moran, Comment on the Rules of Court Volume
3,1980 Edition) Where no notice as required by Section 3, Rule 79 of the Rules of Court has been
given to persons believed to have an interest in the estate of the deceased person; the proceeding
for the settlement of the estate is void and should be annulled. The requirement as to notice is
essential to the validity of the proceeding in that no person may be deprived of his right to property
without due process of law. 

Verily, notice through publication of the petition for the settlement of the estate of a
deceased person is jurisdictional, the absence of which makes court orders affecting other persons,
subsequent to the petition void and subject to annulment. (See Eusebio v. Valmores, supra)

In the instant case, no notice as mandated by section 3, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of
Court was caused to be given by the probate court before it acted on the motions of the private
respondent to be appointed as special administratrix, to issue a writ of possession of alleged
properties of the deceased person in the widow's favor, and to grant her motion for assistance to
preserve the estate of Manolito de Guzman.

The petitioner as creditor of the estate has a similar interest in the preservation of the
estate as the private respondent who happens to be the widow of deceased Manolito de Guzman.
Hence, the necessity of notice as mandated by the Rules of Court. It is not clear from the records
exactly what emergency would have ensued if the appointment of an administrator was deferred at
least until the most interested parties were given notice of the proposed action. No unavoidable
delay in the appointment of a regular administrator is apparent from the records.

If emergency situations threatening the dissipation of the assets of an estate justify a court's
immediately taking some kind of temporary action even without the required notice, no such
emergency is shown in this case. The need for the proper notice even for the appointment of a
special administrator is apparent from the circumstances of this case.

The respondent Judge himself explains that the order for the preservation of the estate was
limited to properties not claimed by third parties. If certain properties are already in the possession
of the applicant for special administratrix and are not claimed by other persons, we see no need to
hurry up and take special action to preserve those properties. As it is, the sheriffs took advantage
of the questioned order to seize by force, properties found in the residence of the petitioner which
he vehemently claims are owned by him and not by the estate of the deceased person.

Doctrines learned. – (1) Facts to be alleged in the application before a court may acquire
jurisdiction over the case for probate of will.

(2) In the instant case, there is no doubt that the respondent court acquired jurisdiction over the
proceedings upon the filing of a petition for the settlement of an intestate estate by the private
respondent since the petition had alleged all the jurisdictional facts, the residence of the deceased
person, the possible heirs and creditors and the probable value of the estate of the deceased
Manolito de Guzman pursuant to Section 2, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court De Guzman vs.

(3) Need to differentiate between jurisdiction of the probate court over the proceedings for the
administration of an estate and its jurisdiction over the persons interested in the settlement of the
estate of the deceased person.

(4) Probate court must cause notice through publication of the petition after receiving the same
otherwise the proceeding for the settlement of the estate is void and should be annulled.