SPECPRO Appointment of Co-Administrator

Uy v. Court of Appeals GR No. 167979, 519 PHIL 673-682

Date: March 16, 2006
Ponente: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
WILSON S. UY, as Judicial Administrator of the THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON.
Intestate Estate of the Deceased JOSE K. C. UY, ANASTACIO C. RUFON, As Presiding Judge of
petitioner. Branch 52, of the Regional Trial Court, Sixth
Judicial Region, sitting at Bacolod City, and
JOHNNY K. H. UY, respondents.
DOCTRINE
A co-administrator performs all the functions and duties and exercises all the powers of a regular
administrator, only that he is not alone in the administration. The practice of appointing co-
administrators in estate proceedings is not prohibited. Under both Philippine and American
jurisprudence, the appointment of co-administrators has been upheld for various reasons, viz: (1) to have
the benefit of their judgment and perhaps at all times to have different interests represented; (2) where
justice and equity demand that opposing parties or factions be represented in the management of the
estate of the deceased; (3) where the estate is large or, from any cause, an intricate and perplexing one
to settle; (4) to have all interested persons satisfied and the representatives to work in harmony for the
best interests of the estate; and (5) when a person entitled to the administration of an estate desires to
have another competent person associated with him in the office.
FACTS
Jose K.C. Uy (Deceased) died intestate on August 20, 1996 and is survived by his spouse, Sy Iok Ing
Uy, and his five children, namely, Lilian S. Uy, Lilly S. Uy, Livian S. Uy-Garcia, Lilen S. Uy and Wilson
S. Uy (Petitioner).

On February 18, 1997, Special Proceedings No. 97-241 was instituted and Lilia Hofileña was appointed
as special administrator of the estate of the deceased. On June 9, 1998, Judge Ramon B. Posadas revoked
Lilia Hofileña's appointment as special administrator and denied her petition to be appointed as regular
administrator. Meanwhile, letters of administration were granted to petitioner, who took his oath of
office as administrator on June 23, 1998.

Johnny K. H. Uy (Private Respondent) in his motion to intervene sought to be appointed as administrator

as he is not only the brother of the decedent but also a creditor who knows the extent of the latter's
properties. Thus, the trial court, while retaining petitioner as administrator, appointed private
respondent as co-administrator of the estate.

Petitioner asserts that his appointment as a regular administrator is already final, unassailable or res
judicata; that the inferior court has no authority to re-open the issue of the appointment of an
administrator without removing the incumbent administrator; that private respondent is not only alien to
the estate, but has a conflict of interest with it; that the trial court's appointment of private respondent as
co-administrator constitutes grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction.
ISSUE/S
Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in appointing private respondent as co-
administrator to the estate of the deceased.
RULING
NO. The main function of a probate court is to settle and liquidate the estates of deceased persons either
summarily or through the process of administration. In the case at bar, the trial court granted letters of
administration to petitioner and thereafter to private respondent as co-administrator. Under Section 6,
Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, the preference to whom letters of administration may be granted are as
follows:
 SEC. 6. When and to whom letters of administration granted. — If no executor is
named in the will, or the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to
give bond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall be granted:
(a) To the surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or both, in
the discretion of the court, or to such person as such surviving husband or wife, or next of
kin, requests to have appointed, if competent and willing to serve;
(b) If such surviving husband or wife, as the case may be, or next of kin, or the
person selected by them, be incompetent or unwilling, or if the husband or widow, or next
of kin, neglects for thirty (30) days after the death of the person to apply for administration
or to request that administration be granted to some other person, it may be granted to one
or more of the principal creditors, if competent and willing to serve;
(c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be granted to
such other person as the court may select.

The order of preference in the appointment of an administrator depends on the attendant facts and
circumstances. In Sioca v. Garcia, this Court set aside the order of preference, to wit:

It is well settled that a probate court cannot arbitrarily and without sufficient reason
disregard the preferential rights of the surviving spouse to the administration of the estate
of the deceased spouse. But, if the person enjoying such preferential rights is
unsuitable, the court may appoint another person. The determination of a person's
suitability for the office of administrator rests, to a great extent, in the sound judgment of
the court exercising the power of appointment and such judgment will not be interfered
with on appeal unless it appears affirmatively that the court below was in error.
Unsuitableness may consist in adverse interest of some kind or hostility to those
immediately interested in the estate.

In the instant case, the order of preference was not disregarded by the trial court. Instead of
removing petitioner, it appointed private respondent, a creditor, as co-administrator since the estate was
sizeable and petitioner was having a difficult time attending to it alone. In fact, petitioner did not submit
any report regarding the estate under his administration. In its March 16, 2000 Order, the trial court
found thus:

Going over all the arguments of the parties, after hearing has been set relative
thereto, this Court has observed that indeed the judicial administrator had not submitted to
the Court any report about the Estate under his administration except those involving the
cases he filed and/or intervened in other branches. This may be due to his being
inexperienced, but this fact will not be reason enough to remove him from the
administration of the Estate as Judicial Administrator thereof. However, considering that
the Intervenor is claiming to be the patriarch of the Uy family and who claims to have
enormous knowledge of the businesses and properties of the decedent Jose K.C. Uy, it is
the feeling of this Court that it will be very beneficial to the Estate if he be appointed co-
administrator (without removing the already appointed Judicial Administrator) of the
Estate of Jose K.C. Uy, if only to shed more light to the alleged enormous
properties/businesses and to bring them all to the decedent's Estate pending before this
Court.

A co-administrator performs all the functions and duties and exercises all the powers of a regular
administrator, only that he is not alone in the administration. The practice of appointing co-
administrators in estate proceedings is not prohibited. In Gabriel v. Court of Appeals, this Court
reaffirmed that jurisprudence allows the appointment of co-administrators under certain circumstances,
to wit:
 Under both Philippine and American jurisprudence, the appointment of co-
administrators has been upheld for various reasons, viz: (1) to have the benefit of their
judgment and perhaps at all times to have different interests represented; (2) where justice
and equity demand that opposing parties or factions be represented in the management of
the estate of the deceased; (3) where the estate is large or, from any cause, an intricate
and perplexing one to settle; (4) to have all interested persons satisfied and the
representatives to work in harmony for the best interests of the estate; and (5) when a
person entitled to the administration of an estate desires to have another competent person
associated with him in the office.

Thus, petitioner's argument that the trial court cannot re-open the issue of the appointment of an
administrator without removing the incumbent administrator is erroneous. In probate proceedings,
considerable latitude is allowed a probate court in modifying or revoking its own orders as long as the
proceedings are pending in the same court and timely applications or motions for such modifications or
revocations are made by the interested parties. In the instant case, the estate of the deceased has not yet
been settled and the case is still within the jurisdiction of the court.
VILLAROMAN