Case Summary (G.R. No. 198357)
Factual Background
In the intestate proceeding, the trial court heard testimony, including that of Vicente Sichon, presented by the proponent of the purported will of Vicente Tad-Y. After hearing the testimony, the attorney for the proponent, Mr. Clemente Zulueta, withdrew the application to probate the document filed and attached to the record as the deceased’s will. The trial court then ordered that the proceeding continue as an intestate settlement of the estate.
The trial court further recited that it appeared from the testimony of Rosario Esler that Vicente Tad-Y died on December 26, 1922 at the Mission Hospital in Iloilo, leaving a will. The document could not be admitted to probate as a will because the solemnities required by law were not complied with. In view of this, the trial court appointed Manuel Locsin as special administrator on February 26, 1923, because he was one of the persons named by the testator as executors in the unprobated will.
Trial Court Proceedings
After his appointment, Manuel Locsin furnished a bond in the amount of P10,000 for the faithful discharge of his office and took his oath of office on March 2. The trial court issued letters of administration to him on March 5. Thereafter, finding that there was no ground whatever for revoking his appointment, the trial court confirmed his appointment and ordered that the previously given bond of P10,000 should stand.
The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal
From the trial court’s order confirming and maintaining the administrator’s appointment, Rosario Esler Vda. de Tad-Y and the guardian ad litem of Jose E. Tad-Y, together with their counsel, appealed. In their briefs in the appellate court, they alleged that the trial court erred in appointing Manuel Locsin as administrator in the intestate proceeding without the consent of Rosario Esler and the minor Jose E. Tad-Y.
The appellate consideration then turned on the legal consequences of the administrator’s appointment, and whether the appointment was reviewable on appeal under the governing procedural rules and substantive provisions for intestate administration.
Appellate Court’s Legal Framework and Resolution
The appellate court held that the appeal was groundless. It reasoned in two possible procedural frames. First, if Manuel Locsin was appointed by the trial court as special administrator, the court held that section 660 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not permit any appeal from the appointment of that special administrator.
Second, if Manuel Locsin was appointed as administrator of the intestate estate under section 642 of Act No. 190, the appellate court held that the trial court possessed discretion to issue letters of administration to any of the persons mentioned in that section. It further ruled that absent an abuse of discretion, which it found did not appear in the case, the appointment could not be revoked on appeal.
Under either legal view, the asserted ground—that the appointment had been made without the consent of Rosario Esler and Jose E. Tad-Y—did not justify appellate reversal.
Ruling of the Court and Disposition
The Court affirmed the order appealed from. It directed that the order be affirmed with the costs against the appellants. The decision was concurred in by Araullo, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avancena, and Romualdez, JJ.
Doctrinal Takeaway
The ruling establishes that the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 198357)
- The case arose from an intestate settlement proceeding for the estate of Vicente Tad-Y, in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo.
- The proceeding involved a dispute over the propriety of the appointment of Manuel Locsin as administrator.
- The parties on appeal were Rosario Esler, Vda. de Tad-Y, and Jose E. Tad-Y, the latter being represented by his guardian ad litem, Juan Jamora as petitioners and appellants, against Maria Tad-Y as opponent and appellee, and against Manuel Locsin as administrator and appellee.
Procedural Posture
- The trial court entered an order that withdrew the probate application because the proponent’s document could not be admitted to probate as a will.
- The order directed that the settlement continue as an intestate estate.
- The trial court appointed Manuel Locsin as special administrator, later confirmed his appointment, and ordered that his previously filed bond remain.
- The appellants appealed, asserting that the trial court erred in appointing the administrator without the consent of Rosario Esler and the minor Jose E. Tad-Y.
- The appeal reached the Supreme Court, which affirmed the order.
Key Factual Allegations
- The record showed that Vicente Tad-Y died on December 26, 1922, in the Mission Hospital in Iloilo.
- Testimony indicated that the deceased left a will, but the will could not be admitted to probate because the solemnities required by law were not complied with.
- After the probate application was withdrawn, the trial court proceeded to settle the matter as an intestate estate.
- The trial court appointed Manuel Locsin as special administrator on February 26, 1923, because he had been named by the testator as an executor in the non-probatable will.
- Manuel Locsin furnished a bond in the amount of P10,000 and took his oath of office on March 2, with letters of administration issued on March 5.
Issues Presented
- The appeal raised whether the appointment of Manuel Locsin as administrator could be challenged on appeal without the consent of Rosario Esler and the minor Jose E. Tad-Y.
- The case also required determination of which statutory mode governed the administrator’s appointment, namely whether section 660 of the Code o