Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-48585 March 3, 1980
FELICIANO DE GUZMAN, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE TEOFILO GUADIZ, JR., Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch V, Gapan,
and JULIAN VILLEGAS, NATIVIDAD VILLEGAS, GEMINIANO VILLEGAS, CESAR VILLEGAS, MAXIMO MATIAS,
ROSARIO VILLEGAS MATIAS, ANA MARIE V. MATIAS, and LOURDES V. MATIAS, respondents.
C. C. Paralejo for petitioner.
A.R. Reyes respondents.

FERNANDEZ, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari instituted b Feliciano de Guzman against Honorable Teofilo Guadiz, Jr. Judge
of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch V, Gapan, and Julian Villegas, Natividad Villegas,
Geminiano Villegas, Cesar Villegas, Maximo Matias, Rosario Villegas Matias, Ana Marie V. Matias, and
Lourdes V. Matias, seeking the following relief.
WHEREFORE, petitioner most respectively prays:
a) That respondents be ordered to answer this petition;
b) That after hearing the Order of respondent Judge dated December 23, 1977 denying petitioner's Motion
for Appointment of a Special Administrator and consequently, the Order dated July 15, 1978 denying
petitioners Motion for Reconsideration be annulled and that said respondent Judge be declared to have
committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in refusing the
appointment of the Special Administrator;
c) That respondent Judge be directed to appoint a Special Administrator pending the probate of the Last
Will of Catalina Bajacan.
Petitioner respectfully prays for such other relief just and equitable in the premises.
Manila, Philippines, August 14, 1978. 1
On August 31, 1978, without giving due course to the instant petition, this Court adopted a resolution
directing the respondents to comment thereon within ten (10) days from notice thereof. 2
The respondents filed on October 10, 1978 their comment dated October 9, 1978. 3
Meanwhile, on September 29, 1978, the petitioner submitted a Constancia manifesting that the respondent
judge cancelled the hearing on the petition for probate of the will scheduled on September 20, 1978
"pending the outcome of the case before the Supreme Court." 4
On October 18. 1978, this Court resolved: a) to GIVE DUE COURSE to the petition; and b) to REQUIRE (1) the
petitioner to deposit P80.40 for costs and clerk's commission within five (5) days from notice thereof, and (2)
both parties to submit simultaneous memoranda within thirty (30) days from notice thereof. 5
Both petitioner and respondents having filed their respective memoranda, 6 on December 6, 1978, this
Court resolved to declare this case submitted for decision. 7
The record discloses that on March 16, 1977, the petitioner filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Ecija, Branch V, Gapan, docketed as Special Proceeding No. 865 8 for the probate of a will alleged
to have been executed by one Catalina Bajacan instituting the herein petitioner as sole and universal heir
and naming him as executor; that Catalina Bajacan died on February 3, 1977; that on May 10, 1977, the
private respondents filed a motion to dismiss and/or opposition contending, among others, that all the real
properties of Catalina Bajacan are now owned by them by virtue of a Deed of Donation Intervivos
executed on June 19, 1972 by Arcadia Bajacan and Catalina Bajacan in their favor; 9 that on September
30, 1977, the respondent judge resolved to defer resolution on the said motion to dismiss until the parties
shall have presented their evidence; 10 that a motion for the appointment of a special administrator 11 was
filed by the petitioner on September 23, 1977 alleging that the unresolved motion to dismiss would
necessarily delay the probate of the will and the appointment of an executor; that the decedent's estate
consists of eighty (80) hectares of first class agricultural rice land, more or less, yielding fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) worth of rice harvested twice a year; that somebody representing the estate should collect
and receive the palay harvests pending the probate of the will; that on December 23, 1977, the
respondent judge issued an order denying the motion for appointment of a special administrator, the
pertinent portion of which reads:
The appointment of a special administrator is predicated on the necessity of enabling somebody to take
care of the properties where there is a considerable delay in the appointment of a regular administrator. In
the present case, since the properties covered by the will are undoubtedly in the possession of the
oppositors who claim to be the owners thereof, the Court sees no necessity of appointing a special
administrator.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby denies the motion for the appointment of a special
administrator filed by the petitioner dated September 22, 1977 ... 12
that on June 5, 1978, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the order dated December 23,
1977 13 ; that said motion was also denied by the respondent judge in an order dated June 9, 1978 which
states:
In a motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner on June 5, 1978 praying for a reconsideration of the
Order dated Dec. 23, 1977, which denied the motion for appointment of a Special Administrator filed by
him, it is alleged that the Court made a premature determination of ownership and possession of the
oppositors over the properties of the estate of Catalina Bajacan. This assertion is not accurate. What the
Court merely stated in said Order is that the oppositors, who claim to be the owners, are in possession of the
properties covered by the Will.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) denies the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner on June 5, 1978. 14
The main issue in this case is whether the respondent judge presiding the Court of First Instance of Nueva
Ecija, Branch V. Gapan, acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
issuing the order dated December 23, 1977 denying petitioner's motion for the appointment of a special
administrator and the order dated June 9, 1978, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
It is the petitioner's contention that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction because the facts warrant the appointment of a special administrator of the
estate of Catalina Bajacan.
Rule 80, Sec. 1, of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
Section 1 — Appointment of Special Administrator — When there is delay in granting letters testamentary or
of administration by any cause including an appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a will, the court
may appoint a special administrator to take possession and charge of the estate of the deceased until the
questions causing the delay are decided and executors or administrators appointed.
Under the above rule, the probate court may appoint a special administrator 15 should there be a delay in
granting letters testamentary or of administration occasioned by any cause including an appeal from the
allowance or disallowance of a will. Subject to this qualification, the appointment of a special administrator
lies in the discretion of the Court. 16 This discretion, however, must be sound, that is, not whimsical, or
Contrary to reason, justice, equity or legal principle. 17
The basis for appointing a special administrator under the Rules is broad enough to include any cause or
reason for the delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration as where a contest as to the will is
being carried on in the same or in another court, or where there is an appeal pending as to the
proceeding on the removal of an executor or administrator, or in cases where the parties cannot agree
among themselves. 18 Likewise, when from any cause general administration cannot be immediately
granted, a special administrator may be appointed to collect and preserve the property of the deceased.
It is obvious that the phrase "by any cause" includes those incidents which transpired in the instant case
clearly showing that there is a delay in the probate of the will and that the granting of letters testamentary
will consequently be prolonged necessitating the immediate appointment of a special administrator.
The facts justifying the appointment of a special administrator are:
(1) Delay in the hearing of the petition for the probate of the win.
(2) The basis of the private respondents' claim to the estate of Catalina Bajacan and opposition to the
probate of the will is a deed of donation dated June 19, 1972 allegedly executed by the deceased
Catalina Bajacan and her late sister Arcadia Bajacan in their favor. 19
There is an immediate need to file an action for the annulment of such deed of donation in behalf of the
estate. Precisely, the petitioner filed Civil Case No. 1080 in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija Branch
V, against the herein private respondents. The case was dismissed by the respondent judge in an order
dated June 9, 1978 on the ground that the petitioner has no personality to file the action because although
he is named heir in the will, the said will is not yet probated. 20 In the meantime there is nobody to sue in
order to protect the interest of the estate considering that the probate of the will and the appointment of
an executor will take time.
Upon the filing of this petition, the respondent judge, on motion of the private respondents, postponed the
hearing of the probate of the will which was then scheduled on August 23, 1978 to September 20, 1978.
Again, in view of the motion for reconsideration of the private respondents dated September 4, 1978, the
respondent judge issued an order dated September 12, 1978, which in part reads: ... the hearing of this
case scheduled on September 20, 1978 is hereby cancelled pending the outcome of the case before the
Supreme Court. 21
The reasons for the appointment of a special administrator are:
The reason for the practice of appointing a special administrator rests in the fact that estates of decedents
frequently become involved in protracted litigation, thereby being exposed to great waste and losses if
there is no authorized agent to collect the debts and preserve the assets in the interim. The occasion for
such an appointment usually arises where, for some cause, such as a pendency of a suit concerning the
proof of the will, regular administration is .delayed. No temporary administration can be granted where
there is an executor in being capable of acting, however. 22
Principal object of appointment of temporary administrator is to preserve estate until it can pass into hands
of person fully authorized to administer it for benefit of creditors and heirs. 23
It appears that the estate the properties registered under the Torrens system in the name of the deceased
Catalina Bajacan consisting of eighty (80) hectares of first class agricultural land. It is claimed that these 80
hectares produce P50,000.00 worth of palay each harvest twice a year. Obviously there is an immediate
need for a special administrator to protect the interests of the estate as regards the products.
All the facts which warrant the appointment of a special administrator in accordance with Rule 80, Sec. 1
of the Revised Rules of Court are present in the case at bar.
The respondent judge opined that there is no need for the appointment of a special administrator in this
case because the respondents are already in possession of the properties covered by the will. The
respondent judge has failed to distinguish between the partisan possession of litigants from that of the
neutral possession of the special administrator under the Rules of Court. When appointed, a special
administrator is regarded, not as a representative of the agent of the parties suggesting the appointment,
but as the administrator in charge of the estate, and in fact, as an officer of the court. 24 The accountability
which the court. which attaches to the office of a special administrator to be appointed by the court is
absent from the personal possession of private respondents.
The only way to test the validity of the alleged donation in favor of the private respondents is to appoint a
special adiu administrator who will have the personality to file the corresponding action. In view of all the
foregoing, respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner's motion for
appointment of a special administrator.
WHEREFORE, the petition for a writ of certiorari is hereby granted and the Order of the respondent judge
dated December 23, 1977, denying petitioner's motion for appointment of a special administrator and the
order dated June 9, ,978 denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration are set aside. The respondent
judge is ordered forthwith to appointment a special administrator pending the probate of the last will of
Catalina Bajacan in Special Proceeding No. 865, without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.