Case Digest (A.M. No. P-07-2340)
Case Digest (A.M. No. P-07-2340)
Facts:
Pedro de Guzman v. 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, G.R. No. 78590, June 20, 1988, Supreme Court Third Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.On May 5, 1987, Elaine G. de Guzman filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of her late husband Manolito de Guzman before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati (Special Proceedings No. M-1436). The petition alleged the decedent’s death, residence, the existence of real and personal properties (annexed), probable net estate value (≈P4,000,000), known heirs (the widow and two minor children), possible creditors, and that no will had been found; it prayed for letters of administration in favor of the petitioner-widow.
On May 22, 1987 the widow moved for a writ of possession over five vehicles allegedly belonging to the conjugal estate but then in the possession of her father‑in‑law, Pedro de Guzman (the present petitioner). The court set a hearing for May 27, 1987 and directed the deputy sheriff to notify Pedro at the widow’s expense. Hearings were continued and Pedro’s counsel filed notices of appearance and motions for extension; the hearing was ultimately reset to June 15, 1987.
Meanwhile, on May 28, 1987 the widow filed an ex parte motion to be appointed special administratrix. The RTC set the motion for hearing on June 5, 1987 and, although the order directed that “all parties in the case be notified,” no notice was given to Pedro. On June 5, 1987 the RTC granted the motion and appointed Elaine G. de Guzman special administratrix, fixing bond at P200,000.00. On June 8, 1987 the RTC, acting on a further “Urgent Ex‑Parte Motion for Assistance,” appointed Deputy Sheriffs Honorio Santos and Jose B. Flora (and possibly police/military personnel) to assist the special administratrix in preserving the estate; the order purportedly limited relief to not affect the pending writ‑of‑possession motion.
Enforcement precipitated confrontation: when the deputy sheriffs attempted to seize the vehicles at Pedro’s residence, Pedro resisted, claiming the items were his personal property. The incident involved police and CAPCOM soldiers and was defused by Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay; some machinery was temporarily put in Mayor Binay’s custody pending clarification. A conference in the RTC clarified the June 8 order was meant to preserve only assets admittedly belonging to the estate. Pedro filed a manifestation claiming ownership of certain properties.
Pedro then filed a petition in the Supreme Court to annul the RTC orders dated June 5 and June 8, 1987. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on June 10, 1987 enjoining enforcement of the questioned orders and later, on October 28, 1987, gave due course to the petition. Pedro’s principal contention was that the probate court acted without first causing notice to be served to known heirs and creditors as required by Section 3, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court, thus depriving interested parties of due process; he also sought disqualification of the respondent judge. The RTC judge explained he acted to protect the estate from dissipation but offered no evidence of an unavoidable emergency.
The Supreme Court considered whether a probate court may appoint a special administrator, issue writs of possession, or grant assistance to preserve an estate prior to causing the notice required by Section 3, Rule 79. The Court examined prior authorities on jurisdiction in probate matters and on the nature of special administrators and concluded the appointment and orders were invalid for lack of notice and due process; the respondent judge voluntarily inhibited himself, and the case was remanded for hearing with prior notice to all interested parties.
Issues:
- May a probate court appoint a special administrator, issue a writ of possession of alleged properties of the deceased, and grant assistance to preserve the estate in a petition for settlement of an intestate estate before causing notice to be served upon all interested parties as required by Section 3, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court?
- Should the respondent judge be disqualified from further participation in the case?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)