Case Digest (G.R. No. 45904)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 45904)
Facts:
Inestate Estate of the Deceased Luz Garcia, G.R. No. 45904. September 30, 1938, the Supreme Court En Banc, Imperial, J., writing for the Court.This appeal arises from an order of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Tarlac appointing Pablo G. Utulo (applicant and appellee) as judicial administrator of the property of his deceased wife, Luz Garcia, over the opposition of Leona Pasion Viuda de Garcia (oppositor and appellant), the widow of Luz’s father and Luz’s mother. The underlying family sequence began with the intestate death of Juan Garcia Sanchez, whose estate was the subject of administration in Special Proceedings No. 3475 in the Court of First Instance; in that proceeding Leona Pasion was appointed judicial administratrix of Juan’s estate. Juan left legitimate children: Juan Jr., Patrocinio, and Luz. Luz subsequently married Pablo Utulo.
While the administration of Juan’s estate was pending, Luz died in Tarlac without legitimate descendants, leaving as her forced heirs her husband, Pablo G. Utulo, and her mother, Leona Pasion. Pablo filed a petition in the same court (Special Proceedings No. 4188) for judicial administration of Luz’s estate, alleging that Luz’s only property was her share from her father Juan’s intestate and that her only heirs were Pablo and Leona; he sought appointment as administrator of Luz’s estate. Leona opposed the petition, arguing first that no administration was necessary because Luz left no debts, and alternatively that, if administration were ordered, Leona herself should be appointed administratrix as having a better right.
After the requisite publications and trial, the trial court—on August 28, 1936—issued the order appointing Pablo as judicial administrator; Leona excepted and appealed. The appeal to the Supreme Court raised five assigned errors which the Court framed into two controlling questions: (1) whether, on the admitted facts, judicial administration of Luz’s property was proper and (2) whether the appellant had a better right to the office of administrator than the appellee. The matter came to the Court by appeal from the trial court’s order.
Issues:
- Under the admitted facts, does judicial administration of Luz Garcia’s estate lie (i.e., was appointment of a judicial administrator proper)?
- If administration lies, does the appellant have a better right to appointment than the appellee?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)