G.R. No. 187879 - Ocampo vs. Ocampo

Case Summary (G.R. No. 187879)

Key Dates

December 19, 1972: Death of Vicente Ocampo
February 19, 1996: Death of Maxima Ocampo
January 23, 2004: Death of Leonardo Ocampo
June 24, 2004: Petitioners file an intestate‐settlement petition (Sp. Proc. No. B-3089)
June 15, 2006: RTC appoints Renato and Dalisay as joint special administrators, each to post a ₱200,000 bond
February 16, 2007: RTC substitutes Erlinda for Dalisay as co-special administratrix
March 13, 2008: RTC revokes appointment of Renato and Erlinda as special administrators; appoints Melinda as regular administratrix, subject to bond
December 16, 2008: Court of Appeals annuls the RTC’s March 13 order
April 30, 2009: CA denies petitioners’ motion for reconsideration
July 5, 2010: Supreme Court issues its decision

Applicable Law

1987 Constitution (property rights, due process)
Rule 80, Rules of Court – Special administration provisions
Rule 81, Rules of Court – Bond requirements for administrators
Rule 78, Rules of Court – Preference and qualifications for regular administrators
Rule 79, Rules of Court – Petition for letters of administration

Antecedents and Lower–Court Proceedings

Petitioners, as heirs by representation of Leonardo, sought judicial settlement of the parents’ estate and Leonardo’s estate in one proceeding. Respondents opposed, arguing that Leonardo’s estate settlement was premature. The RTC admitted the parents’ estate proceeding and appointed Renato and Dalisay as special administrators (June 15, 2006). Respondents’ motion for reconsideration led to Dalisay’s removal and substitution by Erlinda (February 16, 2007). Petitioners repeatedly moved for inventory, accounting, and termination of special administration, citing respondents’ failure to post bond, delay in taking office, alleged mismanagement, and fraudulent sale of estate property.

RTC’s Revocation and Regular Administration Order

On March 13, 2008, the RTC revoked the special‐administration appointment of Renato and Erlinda for failure to:

Post the required ₱200,000 administrators’ bonds each;
Submit a true inventory of estate properties within the prescribed period;
Render an accounting of estate income.

The court then appointed Melinda as regular administratrix, conditioned on her posting a ₱200,000 bond and filing the necessary inventory and income statement. It directed that, once Melinda assumed duties, judicial partition might proceed.

Court of Appeals’ Ruling

The CA granted respondents’ certiorari petition, holding that the RTC abused its discretion by:

Revoking special administrators before resolving their pending motion for exemption from bond;
Appointing Melinda as regular administratrix without a formal hearing to determine her fitness.

The CA reinstated Renato and Erlinda as special administrators and set aside Melinda’s appointment.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Special Administration

Discretion to Appoint or Remove. A probate court’s appointment or removal of special administrators is interlocutory and rests on its discretion guided by reason, equity, and justice.
Bond Prerequisite. Under Rule 81 and Rule 80, posting of an administrators’ bond is a qualification to assume and discharge estate duties. Bond secures faithful inventory, accounting, and delivery of estate assets.
Respondents’ Default. Respondents repeatedly failed to post their bonds despite (a) the RTC’s clear orders on June 15, 2006 and February 16, 2007; (b) their own admissions of estate management since 2002; and (c) actual distributions of estate proceeds without bond security.
Legitimate Grounds for Revocation. The RTC validly revoked respondents’ appointment for noncompliance with bond posting and failure to submit inventory and accounting. The CA erred in substituting bond compliance for permission to assume duties.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on Regular Administration

Statutory Requirements. Appointment of a regular administrator must comply with:
- Rule 78’s order of preference (spouse, next of kin) and competency standards;
- Rule 79’s petition, notice, opposition, hearing, and formal order.
Faulty Process. Melinda’s designation as regular administratrix arose from a motion to revoke special administration, not from a proper petition for letters of administration. Res

...

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 187879)

Facts

Petitioners are the surviving wife (Dalisay) and children (Vince, Melinda, Leonardo Jr.) of the late Leonardo M. Ocampo, who died January 23, 2004.
Respondents Renato M. Ocampo and Erlinda M. Ocampo are siblings and co-heirs of Vicente and Maxima Ocampo, the parents of Leonardo.
Vicente died intestate December 19, 1972; Maxima died intestate February 19, 1996. They left real properties in Biñan, Laguna, without debts or will.
After Leonardo’s death, petitioners alleged that respondents took exclusive control of the parental estate income and property, excluding petitioners from their lawful shares.
On June 24, 2004, petitioners filed Spec. Proc. No. B-3089 for judicial settlement of the estates of Vicente, Maxima, and Leonardo, praying for appointment of an administrator to apportion the two estates among all heirs.

Procedural History in the RTC

Respondents opposed and filed a counter-petition (Oct. 7, 2004) arguing that two estates could not be settled in one proceeding, that Leonardo’s estate settlement was premature, and praying to be appointed special joint administrators of Vicente and Maxima’s estate.
RTC Branch 24 denied respondents’ opposition but admitted their counter-petition (Mar. 4, 2005), clarifying the proceeding covered only Vicente and Maxima’s estate.
Respondents moved (Oct. 11, 2005) for appointment as special joint administrators without bond; petitioners opposed, citing deprivation of income and prayed for issuance of letters of administration to both respondents and Dalisay.
Petitioners also nominated Biñan Rural Bank as special administrator pending resolution of the letters-administration issue (Dec. 5, 2005).
RTC appointed Renato and Dalisay as special joint administrators, each required to post a ₱200,000 bond (June 15, 2006).
Respondents moved for reconsideration (Aug. 1, 2006), challenging Dalisay’s fitness and arguing abandonment of her appointment; supplemented by asserting their priority as next of kin.
RTC revoked Dalisay’s designation and substituted Erlinda as co-special administratrix (Feb. 16, 2007), citing respondents’ nearer kinship. Petitioners did not contest and pressed for speedy settlement.
Petitioners filed motions (Apr. 23, 2007; Nov. 20, 2006) to compel respondents to submit inventory and accounting; respondents countered, pointing to pending bond-exemption motion.
Respondents filed Motion for Exemption to File Administrators’ Bond (May 22, 2007), alleging financial incapacity and promising faithful performance.
RTC directed the parties to submit comments on both inventory and bond-exemption incidents (June 29, 2007). Respondents asked