Case Digest (G.R. No. 46134)
Facts:
In the Matter of the Intestate of Proceso de Guzman, G.R. No. 46134, April 18, 1939, Supreme Court En Banc, Avanceaa, C.J., writing for the Court.Proceso de Guzman died intestate on January 1, 1937. By his first marriage to Agatona Santos he had four children, including Nicolasa de Guzman; after Agatona's death he contracted a second marriage with Angela Limcolioc, by whom he had no issue.
On January 7, 1937, the Court of First Instance of Rizal appointed Nicolasa de Guzman judicial administratrix of the deceased's properties. The next day, January 8, 1937, Angela Limcolioc, the surviving spouse, filed a petition asking that the appointment be set aside and that she be named administratrix instead, asserting the statutory preference of the widow. The trial court denied Angela's petition and sustained Nicolasa's appointment. Angela appealed the trial court's denial of reconsideration and the appointment order to the appropriate appellate tribunal, and the case was brought to the Supreme Court by petition for review (appeal) from the appealed decision.
The appellant argued that (1) the court should have appointed her as administratrix by reason of the widow's legal preference, and (2) the court erred in appointing Nicolasa without first setting the case for a hearing. Nicolasa's application for appointment alleged that all properties left by the deceased were acquired during his first marriage with Agatona Santos, and none during the second marriage with Angela Limcolioc. The trial court considered these allegations and, noting that Angela did not deny them when seeking reconsideration (only contending they did not justify Nicolasa's appointment), sustained Nicolasa's appointment. The trial court concluded that ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court commit reversible error by appointing Nicolasa as administratrix without setting the matter for hearing?
- Does the statutory preference of the widow to administer her deceased husband's estate bar appointment of another administrator where others (the deceased's children) have a greater...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)