G.R. No. 78590 - De Guzman vs. Angeles

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 (RTC) of Makati, Metro Manila.
The petition alleged that:

Manolito de Guzman died on March 22, 1987, in Makati, Metro Manila.
The decedent was a resident of Makati at the time of death.
The decedent left various personal and real properties, acquired after his marriage, forming part of the conjugal partnership between him and the petitioner.
The estate’s probable net value was provisionally assessed at approximately P4,000,000.00.
A list of potential creditors and accounts payable was attached (Annex “E”).
The compulsory heirs included the surviving spouse (the petitioner) and their two minor children, Charmane Rose de Guzman (11 years old) and Peter Brian de Guzman (9 years old).
After diligent search, no last will and testament was found, and the petitioner contended that the decedent died intestate.
The petitioner asserted her qualification and entitlement to the grant of letters of administration.

On May 22, 1987, the private respondent filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession over five vehicles registered in the name of Manolito de Guzman, vehicles she claimed were conjugal properties presently in possession of petitioner Pedro de Guzman.
The motion argued that as a co-owner and heir, the private respondent needed possession of the vehicles to preserve the estate.
The RTC initially set a hearing for May 27, 1987, with directions to notify petitioner Pedro de Guzman at the expense of the private respondent.
The hearing was postponed on motion of petitioner’s counsel, with a notice allowing three days for the petitioner to comment on the writ of possession motion, then rescheduled to June 5, 1987, and later reset to June 15, 1987.

On May 28, 1987, private respondent Elaine G. de Guzman filed an ex-parte motion requesting the appointment of petitioner as special administratrix of the estate pending the eventual appointment of a regular administrator.
A hearing for the appointment was set for June 5, 1987, in an order that also directed that all parties in the case be notified. However, no notice was given to petitioner.
On June 5, 1987, the RTC granted the motion, appointing Elaine G. de Guzman as Special Administratrix and fixing her bond at P200,000.00.

On June 8, 1987, the RTC issued an order granting a motion for assistance filed by the special administratrix to appoint Deputy Sheriffs Honorio Santos and Jose B. Flora (among other security personnel) to help preserve the estate’s assets.
The order clarified that the assistance was limited to assets admittedly belonging to the estate and did not affect the pending motion for writ of possession.

Trouble ensued when respondent deputy sheriffs attempted to seize vehicles from petitioner Pedro de Guzman, resulting in a near violent confrontation between Makati Police and CAPCOM soldiers.
The incident was diffused by the timely intervention of Mayor Jejomar Binay, leading to an agreement to temporarily place a bulldozer in the custody of the mayor while awaiting clarification of the order.
Petitioner subsequently filed a manifestation listing properties he claimed as personal and initiated a petition to annul the RTC’s orders dated June 5 and June 8, 1987.
A temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued on June 10, 1987, and in a later resolution on October 28, 1987, the petition was given due course.

The petitioner argued that the RTC acted with grave error and abuse of discretion by issuing orders without giving proper notice as required by Section 3, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court.
He contended that due process was violated because:

The petition for the settlement of the estate had not been set for hearing and published for three consecutive weeks as mandated, thus rendering the court’s jurisdiction over interested parties premature.
The appointment of the special administratrix without notice deprived him and other interested parties of the opportunity to oppose the appointment and fully determine the applicant’s qualifications.
The immediate implementation of the writ of possession motion (especially by conducting seizures at his residence) reflected an intent to deprive him of his property without due process.

Petitioner also sought the disqualification of respondent Judge Zosimo Angeles, alleging partiality, though the issue became academic after the judge opted for voluntary inhibition.

The case references Section 3, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court, which mandates that a petition for letters of administration be set for a hearing with publication and notice given to all interested parties.
Jurisprudence, including Santos v. Castillo and Eusebio v. Valmores, was cited to underline that the lack of notice renders probate proceedings void since it violates the due process guarantee.

Whether a probate court may grant motions for the appointment of a special administratrix, issue a writ of possession, and order assistance to preserve the decedent’s estate in an intestate proceeding without having given notice by publication as required by Section 3, Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Whether the immediate enforcement of orders—including the seizure of alleged estate assets—and the appointment of the special administratrix without affording interested parties, particularly the petitioner, an opportunity to participate are a violation of due process and amount to abuse of discretion.
Whether the procedural irregularities, including the failure to notify all interested parties, justify annulling the lower court’s orders and mandating a remand of the case with proper notice.