RULE 82 that petitioner had been accorded due process.

filed at the court where a special proceeding for

It upheld the jurisdiction of the intestate court the settlement of the estate is pending.
CASE NO. 1: PASCUAL VS CA on the ground that, although not incurred by the  Hence, in spite of the death of the appointed
deceased during his lifetime, the monetary claim administratrix, it was the duty of the intestate
Facts: was related to the ordinary acts of court to determine whether the private
 Don Andres Pascual died intestate on October administration of the estate. respondent's claim was allowable as
12, 1973 and was survived by his widow, Doña  Petitioner sought for the reversal of the assailed administrative expense — if it was obtained in
Adela Soldevilla Pascual, and children of his decision alleging that the portion of the decision reference to the management of the estate; the
brothers including herein petitioner, Dr. Olivia dated January 19, 1994 awarding attorney's fees performance of legal services which the
Pascual, one of the natural children of his is void from the beginning because it was made administratrix herself could not perform; the
brother Eligio Pascual. after . . . [the] trial court had lost its jurisdiction prosecution or defense of actions or suits on
 Doña Adela filed a petition for letter of over the attorney's client by reason of her death. behalf of or against the estate; or the discovery,
administration, and to assist her with the recovery or preservation of properties of the
proceedings, hired Atty. Jesus Santos, herein Issue: Whether or not the portion of the decision dated estate. In other words, the intestate court has a
private respondent, as her counsel. January 19, 1994 awarding attorney's fees is void from the mandate to resolve whether the said claim is a
 When Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 took effect, the beginning because it was made after . . . [the] trial court "necessary expense in the care, management
petition was reassigned to the Regional Trial had lost its jurisdiction over the attorney's client by reason and settlement of the estate." For the same
Court (RTC) of Pasig, Branch 162, presided by of her death. reason, the fact that the private respondent's
Judge Manual Padolina. On November 4, 1985, lien was recorded four months after the
the heirs of the decedent moved for the Ruling: NO. administratrix had died is of no moment.
approval of their Compromise Agreement,  The argument is untenable. The basic flaw in the
stipulating that three fourths (3/4) of the estate argument is the misapplication of the rules on CASE NO. 2: HILADO VS CA
would go to Doña Adela and one fourth (1/4) to the extinction of a civil action in special
the other heirs. The intestate court approved proceeding. The death of Doña Adela did not Facts:
said Agreement on December 10, 1985. ipso facto extinguish the monetary claim of  Sugar magnate Roberto Benedicto died intestate
 On August 18, 1987, Doña Adela died leaving a private respondent or require him to refile his on May 15, 2000, and was survived by his wife,
will which named petitioner as the sole universal claim with the court hearing the settlement of Julita Campos Benedicto, herein private
heir. Petitioner filed with RTC Malabon a petition her testate estate. Had her filed the claim respondent, and daughter Francisca Benedicto-
for probate of the will. RTC Pasig, meanwhile, against Doña Adela personally, the rule would Paulino. At the time of his death, there were two
denied the motion to reiterate hereditary rights have applied. However, he did so against the pending civil cases against Benedicto involving
by reason that as illegitimate children of the estate of Don Andres. the petitioners.
brother of the decedent, they were barred from  Where an appointed administrator dies, the  On May 25, 2000, Julita Campos Benedicto filed
acquiring any hereditary right to her intestate applicable rule is Section 2, Rule 82 of the Rules with RTC Manila a petition for the issuance of
estate under Article 992 of the Civil Code. of Court. letter of administration in her favor. RTC then
 On January 1994, Judge Padolina disposed of the  The rule does not have the effect of divesting the appointed Julira as administrator of the estate of
case in accordance with the compromise instance court of jurisdiction. Its jurisdiction her late husband. And issued a letters of
agreement entered into on October 16,1985 subsists because the proper party in this case is administration in her favor. In the List of
where ¾ of the properties shall belong to the the estate of Don Andres, which is distinct and Liabilities attached to the inventory, private
estate of Dona Adela and ¼ of the properties of separate from that of Doña Adela who merely respondent included as among the liabilities, the
Don Andres Pascual shall go to his other heirs. served as the former's administratrix. Doña above-mentioned two pending claims then being
 Private respondent moved for its execution Adela was merely a representative party and the litigated before the Bacolod City courts. Private
insofar as the payment of the attorney’s fees claim was an item of the administrative expenses respondent stated that the amounts of liability
was concerned, which was granted. The court of Don Andres' estate. It is well-settled that a corresponding to the two cases as
awarded 2M in favor of Atty. Santos to be monetary claim against the person administering ₱136,045,772.50 for Civil Case No. 95-9137 and
implemented against the estate of Doña Adela. an estate, in relation to his or her acts of ₱35,198,697.40 for Civil Case No. 11178.
 CA affirmed. ruling that the intestate court had administration, in its ordinary course, can be  Petitioners filed with RTC Manila a
jurisdiction to make the questioned award and Manifestation/Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela,

Special Proceedings RULE 82: Revocation of Administration, Death. Resignation or Removal of Executors or Administrators CASE DIGESTS Page 1 of 4
 praying that they be furnished with copies of all and there is no other modality under the Rules even if the administrator did delay in the
processes and orders pertaining to the intestate by which such interests can be protected. It is performance of these duties in the context of
proceedings. Private respondent opposed the under this standard that we assess the three dissipating the assets of the estate, there are
manifestation/motion, disputing the personality prayers sought by petitioners. protections enforced and available under Rule
of petitioners to intervene in the intestate  Allowing creditors, contingent or otherwise, 88 to protect the interests of those with
proceedings of her husband. access to the records of the intestate contingent claims against the estate.
 Manila RTC issued an order denying the proceedings is an eminently preferable  Concerning complaints against the general
manifestation/motion, on the ground that precedent than mandating the service of court competence of the administrator, the proper
petitioners are not interested parties within the processes and pleadings upon them. In either remedy is to seek the removal of the
contemplation of the Rules of Court to intervene case, the interest of the creditor in seeing to it administrator in accordance with Section 2, Rule
in the intestate proceedings. CA affirmed. that the assets are being preserved and disposed 82. While the provision is silent as to who may
 Petitioners argue that the lower courts erred in of in accordance with the rules will be duly seek with the court the removal of the
denying them the right to intervene in the satisfied. Acknowledging their right to access the administrator, we do not doubt that a creditor,
intestate proceedings of the estate of Roberto records, rather than entitling them to the service even a contingent one, would have the
Benedicto citing Rules on Special proceedings to of every court order or pleading no matter how personality to seek such relief. After all, the
support their claim. relevant to their individual claim, will be less interest of the creditor in the estate relates to
cumbersome on the intestate court, the the preservation of sufficient assets to answer
Issue: W/N petitioners, as contingent creditors, have administrator and the heirs of the decedent, for the debt, and the general competence or
interest over the estate of the deceased. while providing a viable means by which the good faith of the administrator is necessary to
interests of the creditors in the estate are fulfill such purpose.
Ruling: YES. (Petition is denied subject to the qualification preserved.
that petitioners, as persons interested in the intestate  Nonetheless, in the instances that the Rules on CASE NO. 3: INTESTATE ESTATE OF WOLFSON
estate of Roberto Benedicto, are entitled to such notices Special Proceedings do require notice to any or
and rights as provided for such interested persons in the all "interested parties" the petitioners as Facts:
Rules on Settlement of Estates of Deceased Persons under "interested parties" will be entitled to such  Rosina Marguerite Wolfson died on September
the Rules on Special Proceedings.) notice. The instances when notice has to be 14, 1965 in San Francisco, California, USA. On
 Petitioners’ interests in the estate of Benedicto given to interested parties are provided in: (1) January 10, 1966, Atty. Manuel Y. Macias, herein
may be inchoate interests, but they are viable Sec. 10, Rule 85 in reference to the time and petitioner-appellant, unaware that Rosina died
interests nonetheless. We are mindful that the place of examining and allowing the account of with a will and testament, filed in behalf of
Rules of Special Proceedings allows not just the executor or administrator; (2) Sec. 7(b) of Ricardo Vito Cruz a petition for the issuance of
creditors, but also "any person interested" or Rule 89 concerning the petition to authorize the letters of administration in his favor over the
"persons interested in the estate" various executor or administrator to sell personal estate, estate in the Philippines of the late Rosina, which
specified capacities to protect their respective or to sell, mortgage or otherwise encumber real was docketed as Special Proceedings No. 63866
interests in the estate. Anybody with a estates; and; (3) Sec. 1, Rule 90 regarding the and assigned to Branch VIII of Manila CFI
contingent claim based on a pending action for hearing for the application for an order for presided by Judge Barcelona. Petitioner, Ricardo
quasi-delict against a decedent may be distribution of the estate residue. After all, even Vito Cruz was appointed Special Administrator
reasonably concerned that by the time judgment the administratrix has acknowledged in her for the estate of Rosina.
is rendered in their favor, the estate of the submitted inventory, the existence of the  It turned out that Rosina left a will executed in
decedent would have already been distributed, pending cases filed by the petitioners. accordance with the laws of the State of New
or diminished to the extent that the judgment  As to petitioners’ prayer that a deadline be set York and through codicils executed in
could no longer be enforced against it. for the submission of a verified and complete accordance with the laws of the State of
 While there is no general right to intervene on inventory of the estate, the Supreme Court held California, U.S.A., naming therein the Wells
the part of the petitioners, they may be allowed that while there are reliefs available to compel Fargo Bank as sole executor and the University
to seek certain prayers or reliefs from the an administrator to perform duties under of Michigan as the residuary beneficiary.
intestate court not explicitly provided for under Section 1, Rule 83 and Section 6, Rule 85, but a  Wells Fargo appointed its lawyers, one of which
the Rules, if the prayer or relief sought is person whose claim against the estate is still is oppositor-appellee, Arturo Del Rosario.
necessary to protect their interest in the estate, contingent is not the party entitled to do so. Still,

Special Proceedings RULE 82: Revocation of Administration, Death. Resignation or Removal of Executors or Administrators CASE DIGESTS Page 2 of 4
  Pursuant to his appointment as attorney-in-fact his interest in the estate, without need of any petition he filed in behalf of appellee Ricardo
of executor Wells Fargo Bank, Atty. Arturo del authority from Wells Fargo Bank, which does not Vito Cruz, now docketed as Special Proceedings
Rosario filed on August 13, 1966, a petition in and cannot possibly have anything to do with No. 63866 and over two months after Arthur del
Special Proceedings No. 63866 before Branch VIII these proceedings because its appointment by Rosario filed on August 13, 1966 his petition to
of the Manila Court of First Instance, praying the California Superior Court as executor of convert Special Proceedings No. 63866 from
that, inasmuch as the decedent left a will and Rosina's estate does not extend ex proprio vigore intestate to testate.
codicils which were duly probated by the to the Philippines.  As above recounted, petitioner-appellant, on
Superior Court of California, U.S.A., the intestate  Eventually, SP 67302 was consolidated with SP January 21, 1967, filed his opposition to the
proceedings in Special Proceedings No. 63866 be 63866 by the Presiding Judge in Branch VIII. petition of Atty. Arturo del Rosario for his
converted into a petition for the probate of appointment as ancillary administrator in Special
Rosina's will and codicils. Issue: W/N the Presiding Judge of Branch VIII exercised Proceedings No. 63866 of Rosina's estate, on the
 Petitioner-appellant, Manuel Macias, without sound discretion in directing the dismissal of Special ground that del Rosario lacks legal interest, while
informing his client, Ricardo Vito Cruz, filed a Proceedings No. 67302. he, petitioner-appellant, has legal interest and
similar but separate and independent petition, represents the bigger interest in Rosina's estate
which was docketed as Special Proceedings No. Ruling: and therefore should be appointed regular
67302 and assigned to Branch VI of the Manila  YES. In Macias vs Uy Kim, the SC reiterated the administrator.
Court of First Instance, then presided by Judge rule that "Under Section 1 of Rule 73, Rules of  Hence, the appealed orders dated February 20
Gaudencio Cloribel, alleging that he has a legal Court, 'the court first taking cognizance of the and April 22, 1967 of the Presiding Judge of
interest in Rosina's estate and praying for the settlement of the estates of the deceased, shall Branch VIII dismissing Special Proceedings No.
probate of Rosina's will and codicils as well as for exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other 67302 after the same was transferred from
his appointment as special administrator. Judge courts.” Branch VI to Branch VIII and consolidated with
Cloribel appointed Macias as the Special  The salutary purpose of the rule is to prevent Special Proceedings No. 63866 pursuant to the
Administraor. Atty. Del Rosario opposed to the confusion and delay. It is not inserted in the law order date February 11, 1967, should be
petition of the appellant for the probate of the for the benefit of the parties litigant but in the sustained.
will and codicils of the deceased in SP 67302 on public interest for the better administration of  Generally, consolidation and joint hearing of the
the grounds, among others, that Rosina's estate justice, for which reason the parties have no two cases would have been proper if they do not
is the subject of Special Proceedings No. 63866 control over it. Consequently, every challenge to involve settlement of the estate of a decedent,
before Branch VIII previously filed by petitioner- the validity of the will, any objection to its which is covered by a special provision of the
appellant Macias in behalf of respondent Ricardo authentication, every demand or claim by any Rules of Court, namely Section 1 of Rule 73, the
Vito Cruz and before which he (Atty. Arturo del heir, legatee or party in interest in intestate or specific command of which should be obeyed. At
Rosario) filed on August 13, 1966 a petition for testate succession must be acted upon and any rate, motions for consolidation are
the conversion of the said intestate proceedings decided within the same special proceedings, addressed to the sound discretion of the court;
into one for the probate of Rosina's will and not in a separate action, and the same judge and the SC do not find that the trial judge
codicils, which was then pending resolution. having jurisdiction in the administration of the gravely abused his discretion in reconsidering
 Petitioner-appellee and special administrator, estate should take cognizance of the question the prior order for the consolidation of the two
Vito Cruz, also filed a motion to dismiss the said raised, for he will be called upon to distribute or special proceedings for the settlement of the
petition of petitioner-appellant in Special adjudicate the property to the interested parties. same estate and dismissing Special Proceedings
Proceedings No. 67302 citing the same grounds The SC stressed that the main function of a No. 67302, to warrant the exercise of Our
as Atty. Del Rosario. probate court is to settle and liquidate the supervisory authority over the lower court which
 Petitioner appelle, Macias, alleged that he has an estates of the deceased either summarily or has wide discretion in this regard. As a matter of
interest on the estate and that the grounds through the process of administration; and fact, the Honorable Presiding Judge of Branch
advanced by Atty. Arturo del Rosario and Ricardo towards this end the probate court has to VIII exercised sound discretion in directing the
Vito Cruz are not legal grounds for the dismissal determine who the heirs are and their respective dismissal of Special Proceedings No. 67302. The
of Special Proceedings No. 67302, because he is shares in the net assets of the estate. trial court is not precluded from dismissing one
seeking in this Special Proceedings No. 67302 his  It is thus patent that the second petition filed on case after ordering the consolidation and joint
own appointment as regular, not ancillary, October 25, 1966 by petitioner-appellant was hearing of the two cases; because under Section
administrator of Rosina's estate, based simply on about nine (9) months subsequent to the first 1 of Rule 31, after ordering consolidation, the

Special Proceedings RULE 82: Revocation of Administration, Death. Resignation or Removal of Executors or Administrators CASE DIGESTS Page 3 of 4
 court "may make such orders concerning
proceedings therein as may tend to avoid
unnecessary costs or delay."

Special Proceedings RULE 82: Revocation of Administration, Death. Resignation or Removal of Executors or Administrators CASE DIGESTS Page 4 of 4