Case Digest (G.R. No. 21969)
Facts:
Maximina Tan, Administratrix of the Property of the Deceased Go Bung Kiu v. Go Chiong Lee, Tio Liok, Ang Changco and Manuel Go Tianuy, G.R. No. 21969, September 25, 1924, the Supreme Court, Malcolm, J., writing for the Court.The plaintiff-appellee, Maximina Tan, as administratrix of the estate of the deceased Go Bung Kiu, sued the former administrator Go Chiong Lee and his sureties Tio Liok, Ang Changco, and Manuel Go Tianuy (defendants-appellants) to recover P54,700.39 on four causes of action arising from Lee’s administration of the estate. Lee had been the deceased’s encargado; after Go Bung Kiu died in China on April 15, 1920, Lee was appointed special administrator on April 26, 1920, with the three defendants as sureties on a P30,000 bond. On May 25, 1920 Lee’s status was changed to general administrator and he filed a motion for authority to operate two estate stores (Cebu and Toledo), which the court granted; the original order was later annotated in ink to require written reports on July 1 and monthly thereafter.
Lee filed another bond for P30,000 with the same sureties and served until relieved by the present administratrix on October 28, 1921. During his administration he filed three reports covering May 26, 1920 to September 30, 1920; October 1, 1920 to July 31, 1921; and a final report. The committee on claims reported on June 2, 1921, allowing claims of P69,029.91, and the court ordered the administrator to pay the claimants from estate funds without preference. Lee reported on July 19, 1921 that he had paid P16,700.39 to creditors as funds and collections permitted, explained that business at the stores was poor (especially Toledo), and that payments were made “without preference” as creditors collected.
An inventory at the time of death showed merchandise P39,281.57 and credits P61,534.74 (gross P100,816.31). An accountant later valued the estate at P28,467.51 on May 26, 1920 and P8,693.76 on October 25, 1921 — a loss of P19,773.75. The committee’s allowed debts totaled P69,099.91; payments of P16,700.39...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the administrator’s authority to operate the estate stores and his failure to file monthly written reports render him (and his sureties) liable for the losses sustained by the estate?
- Was the administrator accountable for the alleged failure to inventory 850 sacks of corn?
- Was the administrator liable for the purportedly improper, unequal payments to creditors after the committee on claims’ ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)