ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-2009 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-07-2356 - VIRGINIA L. APRIETO v. NOEL C. LINDO

  • A.C. No. 5704 - WILLEM KUPERS v. ATTY. JOHNSON B. HONTANOSAS

  • G.R. No. 120935 and G.R. NO. 124557 - LUCAS G. ADAMSON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL./COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136978 - GD EXPRESS WORLDWIDE N.V., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141001 and G.R. NO. 141018 - BANK OF AMERICA, NT AND SA v. ASSOCIATED CITIZENS BANK, ET AL./ASSOCIATED CITIZENS BANK v. BA FINANCE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 147437 - LARRY V. CAMINOS, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 152071 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EXCELSA INDUSTRIES, INC.

  • G.R. No. 153983 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 154427 - ZACARIAS DELOS SANTOS v. CONSUELO B. PAPA AND MARIA C. MATEO

  • G.R. No. 156087 - KUWAIT AIRWAYS CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.

  • G.R. NOS. 156687-88 - PANFILO D. BONGCAC v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162033 - HEIRS OF TRANQUILINO LABISTE, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF JOSE LABISTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162467 - MINDANAO TERMINAL AND BROKERAGE SERVICE, INC. v. PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK/MCGEE & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. 162987 - SOFIA GUILLANG REPRESENTED BY SUSAN GUILLANG-CABATBAT, ET AL. v. RODOLFO BEDANIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 163495 - SAMUEL MALABANAN v. RURAL BANK OF CABUYAO, INC.

  • G.R. No. 163891 - CHARTER CHEMICAL AND COATING CORPORATION v. HERBERT TAN AND AMALIA SONSING

  • G.R. No. 164025 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF HONORIO DE LEON, REPRESENTED BY AMBROSIO DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 164108 - ALFREDO HILDAO, LOPEZ SUGAR CORPORATION, FIRST FARMERS HOLDING CORPORATION v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164437 - HECTOR C. VILLANUEVA v. PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 167195 - ASSET PRIVITAZATION TRUST v. T.J. ENTERPRISES

  • G.R. NOS. 168992-93 - IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHELLE P. LIM, MONINA P. LIM / IN RE: PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHAEL JUDE P. LIM, MONINA P. LIM

  • G.R. No. 171399 - VICENTA CANTEMPRATE v. CRS REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 171814 - SOUTH DAVAO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. SERGIO L. GAMO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 173049 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) v. TERESITA S. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 173215 - CEBU WINDLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. ONG SIAO HUA

  • G.R. No. 173565 and G.R. NO. 173607 - TRANSPACIFIC BATTERY CORP., ET AL. v. SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY / MELCHOR G. SAY AND JOSEPHINE G. SAY v. SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 174269 - POLO S. PANTALEON v. AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

  • G.R. No. 174981 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS DISTRIBUTORS SPECIALIST, INC., ET AL. v. RAYMUND GARRIEL

  • G.R. No. 175647 - GUIDO CATUIRAN Y NECUDEMUS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. NOS. 175728 & 178914 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PRIME NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION

  • G.R. No. 176308 - ANGEL M. PAGADUAN v. SPOUSES ESTANISLAO & FE POSADAS OCUMA

  • G.R. No. 176709 - FORT BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. HON. EDWIN D. SORONGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 176832 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. MARIAN T. VICENCIO

  • G.R. NO. 178188, G.R. NO. 180674, G.R. NO. 181141 and G.R. NO. 183527 - OLYMPIC MINES AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., v. PLATINUM GROUP OF METALS CORP. / CITINICKEL MINES AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. HON. JUDGE BEIENVENIDO C. BLANCAFLOR, ET AL. / PLATINUM GROUP OF MET

  • G.R. No. 179652 - PEOPLE'S BROADCASTING v. THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 179934 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERLINDA ABORDO AND VINA CABANLONG

  • G.R. No. 180668 - MARIETTA C. AZCUETA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE CA

  • G.R. No. 182191 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LORENZO LAYCO, SR.

  • G.R. No. 182418 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EDWIN PARTOZA Y EVORA

  • G.R. No. 183566 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BONIFACIO BADRIAGO

  • G.R. No. 184050 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BIENVENIDO MARA Y BOLAQUE A

  • G.R. No. 184172 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUIS ANTONIO GARCHITORENA

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 164108 - ALFREDO HILDAO, LOPEZ SUGAR CORPORATION, FIRST FARMERS HOLDING CORPORATION v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

      G.R. No. 164108 - ALFREDO HILDAO, LOPEZ SUGAR CORPORATION, FIRST FARMERS HOLDING CORPORATION v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. NO. 164108 : May 8, 2009]

    ALFREDO HILADO, LOPEZ SUGAR CORPORATION, FIRST FARMERS HOLDING CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE AMOR A. REYES, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 21 and ADMINISTRATRIX JULITA CAMPOS BENEDICTO, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N

    TINGA, J.:

    The well-known sugar magnate Roberto S. Benedicto died intestate on 15 May 2000. He was survived by his wife, private respondent Julita Campos Benedicto (administratrix Benedicto), and his only daughter, Francisca Benedicto-Paulino.1 At the time of his death, there were two pending civil cases against Benedicto involving the petitioners. The first, Civil Case No. 95-9137, was then pending with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, Branch 44, with petitioner Alfredo Hilado as one of the plaintiffs therein. The second, Civil Case No. 11178, was then pending with the RTC of Bacolod City, Branch 44, with petitioners Lopez Sugar Corporation and First Farmers Holding Corporation as one of the plaintiffs therein.2

    On 25 May 2000, private respondent Julita Campos Benedicto filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for the issuance of letters of administration in her favor, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 78 of the Revised Rules of Court. The petition was raffled to Branch 21, presided by respondent Judge Amor A. Reyes. Said petition acknowledged the value of the assets of the decedent to be P5 Million, "net of liabilities."3 On 2 August 2000, the Manila RTC issued an order appointing private respondent as administrator of the estate of her deceased husband, and issuing letters of administration in her favor.4 In January 2001, private respondent submitted an Inventory of the Estate, Lists of Personal and Real Properties, and Liabilities of the Estate of her deceased husband.5 In the List of Liabilities attached to the inventory, private respondent included as among the liabilities, the above-mentioned two pending claims then being litigated before the Bacolod City courts.6 Private respondent stated that the amounts of liability corresponding to the two cases as P136,045,772.50 for Civil Case No. 95-9137 and P35,198,697.40 for Civil Case No. 11178.7 Thereafter, the Manila RTC required private respondent to submit a complete and updated inventory and appraisal report pertaining to the estate.8

    On 24 September 2001, petitioners filed with the Manila RTC a Manifestation/Motion Ex Abundanti Cautela,9 praying that they be furnished with copies of all processes and orders pertaining to the intestate proceedings. Private respondent opposed the manifestation/motion, disputing the personality of petitioners to intervene in the intestate proceedings of her husband. Even before the Manila RTC acted on the manifestation/motion, petitioners filed an omnibus motion praying that the Manila RTC set a deadline for the submission by private respondent of the required inventory of the decedent's estate.10 Petitioners also filed other pleadings or motions with the Manila RTC, alleging lapses on the part of private respondent in her administration of the estate, and assailing the inventory that had been submitted thus far as unverified, incomplete and inaccurate.

    On 2 January 2002, the Manila RTC issued an order denying the manifestation/motion, on the ground that petitioners are not interested parties within the contemplation of the Rules of Court to intervene in the intestate proceedings.11 After the Manila RTC had denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration, a petition for certiorari was filed with the Court of Appeals. The petition argued in general that petitioners had the right to intervene in the intestate proceedings of Roberto Benedicto, the latter being the defendant in the civil cases they lodged with the Bacolod RTC.

    On 27 February 2004, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision12 dismissing the petition and declaring that the Manila RTC did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow petitioners to intervene in the intestate proceedings. The allowance or disallowance of a motion to intervene, according to the appellate court, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. The Court of Appeals cited the fact that the claims of petitioners against the decedent were in fact contingent or expectant, as these were still pending litigation in separate proceedings before other courts.

    Hence, the present petition. In essence, petitioners argue that the lower courts erred in denying them the right to intervene in the intestate proceedings of the estate of Roberto Benedicto. Interestingly, the rules of procedure they cite in support of their argument is not the rule on intervention, but rather various other provisions of the Rules on Special Proceedings.13

    To recall, petitioners had sought three specific reliefs that were denied by the courts a quo. First, they prayed that they be henceforth furnished "copies of all processes and orders issued" by the intestate court as well as the pleadings filed by administratrix Benedicto with the said court.14 Second, they prayed that the intestate court set a deadline for the submission by administratrix Benedicto to submit a verified and complete inventory of the estate, and upon submission thereof, order the inheritance tax appraisers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to assist in the appraisal of the fair market value of the same.15 Third, petitioners moved that the intestate court set a deadline for the submission by the administrator of her verified annual account, and, upon submission thereof, set the date for her examination under oath with respect thereto, with due notice to them and other parties interested in the collation, preservation and disposition of the estate.16

    The Court of Appeals chose to view the matter from a perspective solely informed by the rule on intervention. We can readily agree with the Court of Appeals on that point. Section 1 of Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires that an intervenor "has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court x x x" While the language of Section 1, Rule 19 does not literally preclude petitioners from intervening in the intestate proceedings, case law has consistently held that the legal interest required of an intervenor "must be actual and material, direct and immediate, and not simply contingent and expectant."17

    Nonetheless, it is not immediately evident that intervention under the Rules of Civil Procedure necessarily comes into operation in special proceedings. The settlement of estates of deceased persons fall within the rules of special proceedings under the Rules of Court,18 not the Rules on Civil Procedure. Section 2, Rule 72 further provides that "[i]n the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary actions shall be, as far as practicable, applicable to special proceedings."

    We can readily conclude that notwithstanding Section 2 of Rule 72, intervention as set forth under Rule 19 does not extend to creditors of a decedent whose credit is based on a contingent claim. The definition of "intervention" under Rule 19 simply does not accommodate contingent claims.

    Yet, even as petitioners now contend before us that they have the right to intervene in the intestate proceedings of Roberto Benedicto, the reliefs they had sought then before the RTC, and also now before us, do not square with their recognition as intervenors. In short, even if it were declared that petitioners have no right to intervene in accordance with Rule 19, it would not necessarily mean the disallowance of the reliefs they had sought before the RTC since the right to intervene is not one of those reliefs.

    To better put across what the ultimate disposition of this petition should be, let us now turn our focus to the Rules on Special Proceedings.

    In several instances, the Rules on Special Proceedings entitle "any interested persons" or "any persons interested in the estate" to participate in varying capacities in the testate or intestate proceedings. Petitioners cite these provisions before us, namely: (1) Section 1, Rule 79, which recognizes the right of "any person interested" to oppose the issuance of letters testamentary and to file a petition for administration;" (2) Section 3, Rule 79, which mandates the giving of notice of hearing on the petition for letters of administration to the known heirs, creditors, and "to any other persons believed to have interest in the estate;" (3) Section 1, Rule 76, which allows a "person interested in the estate" to petition for the allowance of a will; (4) Section 6 of Rule 87, which allows an individual interested in the estate of the deceased "to complain to the court of the concealment, embezzlement, or conveyance of any asset of the decedent, or of evidence of the decedent's title or interest therein;" (5) Section 10 of Rule 85, which requires notice of the time and place of the examination and allowance of the Administrator's account "to persons interested;" (6) Section 7(b) of Rule 89, which requires the court to give notice "to the persons interested" before it may hear and grant a petition seeking the disposition or encumbrance of the properties of the estate; and (7) Section 1, Rule 90, which allows "any person interested in the estate" to petition for an order for the distribution of the residue of the estate of the decedent, after all obligations are either satisfied or provided for.

    Had the claims of petitioners against Benedicto been based on contract, whether express or implied, then they should have filed their claim, even if contingent, under the aegis of the notice to creditors to be issued by the court immediately after granting letters of administration and published by the administrator immediately after the issuance of such notice.19 However, it appears that the claims against Benedicto were based on tort, as they arose from his actions in connection with Philsucom, Nasutra and Traders Royal Bank. Civil actions for tort or quasi-delict do not fall within the class of claims to be filed under the notice to creditors required under Rule 86.20 These actions, being as they are civil, survive the death of the decedent and may be commenced against the administrator pursuant to Section 1, Rule 87. Indeed, the records indicate that the intestate estate of Benedicto, as represented by its administrator, was successfully impleaded in Civil Case No. 11178, whereas the other civil case21 was already pending review before this Court at the time of Benedicto's death.

    Evidently, the merits of petitioners' claims against Benedicto are to be settled in the civil cases where they were raised, and not in the intestate proceedings. In the event the claims for damages of petitioners are granted, they would have the right to enforce the judgment against the estate. Yet until such time, to what extent may they be allowed to participate in the intestate proceedings?cralawred

    Petitioners place heavy reliance on our ruling in Dinglasan v. Ang Chia,22 and it does provide us with guidance on how to proceed. A brief narration of the facts therein is in order. Dinglasan had filed an action for reconveyance and damages against respondents, and during a hearing of the case, learned that the same trial court was hearing the intestate proceedings of Lee Liong to whom Dinglasan had sold the property years earlier. Dinglasan thus amended his complaint to implead Ang Chia, administrator of the estate of her late husband. He likewise filed a verified claim-in-intervention, manifesting the pendency of the civil case, praying that a co-administrator be appointed, the bond of the administrator be increased, and that the intestate proceedings not be closed until the civil case had been terminated. When the trial court ordered the increase of the bond and took cognizance of the pending civil case, the administrator moved to close the intestate proceedings, on the ground that the heirs had already entered into an extrajudicial partition of the estate. The trial court refused to close the intestate proceedings pending the termination of the civil case, and the Court affirmed such action.

    If the appellants filed a claim in intervention in the intestate proceedings it was only pursuant to their desire to protect their interests it appearing that the property in litigation is involved in said proceedings and in fact is the only property of the estate left subject of administration and distribution; and the court is justified in taking cognizance of said civil case because of the unavoidable fact that whatever is determined in said civil case will necessarily reflect and have a far reaching consequence in the determination and distribution of the estate. In so taking cognizance of civil case No. V-331 the court does not assume general jurisdiction over the case but merely makes of record its existence because of the close interrelation of the two cases and cannot therefore be branded as having acted in excess of its jurisdiction.

    Appellants' claim that the lower court erred in holding in abeyance the closing of the intestate proceedings pending determination of the separate civil action for the reason that there is no rule or authority justifying the extension of administration proceedings until after the separate action pertaining to its general jurisdiction has been terminated, cannot be entertained. Section 1, Rule 88, of the Rules of Court, expressly provides that "action to recover real or personal property from the estate or to enforce a lien thereon, and actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property, real or personal, may be commenced against the executor or administrator." What practical value would this provision have if the action against the administrator cannot be prosecuted to its termination simply because the heirs desire to close the intestate proceedings without first taking any step to settle the ordinary civil case? This rule is but a corollary to the ruling which declares that questions concerning ownership of property alleged to be part of the estate but claimed by another person should be determined in a separate action and should be submitted to the court in the exercise of its general jurisdiction. These rules would be rendered nugatory if we are to hold that an intestate proceedings can be closed by any time at the whim and caprice of the heirs x x x23 (Emphasis supplied) [Citations omitted]

    It is not clear whether the claim-in-intervention filed by Dinglasan conformed to an action-in-intervention under the Rules of Civil Procedure, but we can partake of the spirit behind such pronouncement. Indeed, a few years later, the Court, citing Dinglasan, stated: "[t]he rulings of this court have always been to the effect that in the special proceeding for the settlement of the estate of a deceased person, persons not heirs, intervening therein to protect their interests are allowed to do so to protect the same, but not for a decision on their action."24

    Petitioners' interests in the estate of Benedicto may be inchoate interests, but they are viable interests nonetheless. We are mindful that the Rules of Special Proceedings allows not just creditors, but also "any person interested" or "persons interested in the estate" various specified capacities to protect their respective interests in the estate. Anybody with a contingent claim based on a pending action for quasi-delict against a decedent may be reasonably concerned that by the time judgment is rendered in their favor, the estate of the decedent would have already been distributed, or diminished to the extent that the judgment could no longer be enforced against it.

    In the same manner that the Rules on Special Proceedings do not provide a creditor or any person interested in the estate, the right to participate in every aspect of the testate or intestate proceedings, but instead provides for specific instances when such persons may accordingly act in those proceedings, we deem that while there is no general right to intervene on the part of the petitioners, they may be allowed to seek certain prayers or reliefs from the intestate court not explicitly provided for under the Rules, if the prayer or relief sought is necessary to protect their interest in the estate, and there is no other modality under the Rules by which such interests can be protected. It is under this standard that we assess the three prayers sought by petitioners.

    The first is that petitioners be furnished with copies of all processes and orders issued in connection with the intestate proceedings, as well as the pleadings filed by the administrator of the estate. There is no questioning as to the utility of such relief for the petitioners. They would be duly alerted of the developments in the intestate proceedings, including the status of the assets of the estate. Such a running account would allow them to pursue the appropriate remedies should their interests be compromised, such as the right, under Section 6, Rule 87, to complain to the intestate court if property of the estate concealed, embezzled, or fraudulently conveyed.

    At the same time, the fact that petitioners' interests remain inchoate and contingent counterbalances their ability to participate in the intestate proceedings. We are mindful of respondent's submission that if the Court were to entitle petitioners with service of all processes and pleadings of the intestate court, then anybody claiming to be a creditor, whether contingent or otherwise, would have the right to be furnished such pleadings, no matter how wanting of merit the claim may be. Indeed, to impose a precedent that would mandate the service of all court processes and pleadings to anybody posing a claim to the estate, much less contingent claims, would unduly complicate and burden the intestate proceedings, and would ultimately offend the guiding principle of speedy and orderly disposition of cases.

    Fortunately, there is a median that not only exists, but also has been recognized by this Court, with respect to the petitioners herein, that addresses the core concern of petitioners to be apprised of developments in the intestate proceedings. In Hilado v. Judge Reyes,25 the Court heard a petition for mandamus filed by the same petitioners herein against the RTC judge, praying that they be allowed access to the records of the intestate proceedings, which the respondent judge had denied from them. Section 2 of Rule 135 came to fore, the provision stating that "the records of every court of justice shall be public records and shall be available for the inspection of any interested person x x x." The Court ruled that petitioners were "interested persons" entitled to access the court records in the intestate proceedings. We said:

    Petitioners' stated main purpose for accessing the records to monitor prompt compliance with the Rules governing the preservation and proper disposition of the assets of the estate, e.g., the completion and appraisal of the Inventory and the submission by the Administratrix of an annual accounting' appears legitimate, for, as the plaintiffs in the complaints for sum of money against Roberto Benedicto, et al., they have an interest over the outcome of the settlement of his estate. They are in fact "interested persons" under Rule 135, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court x x x26

    Allowing creditors, contingent or otherwise, access to the records of the intestate proceedings is an eminently preferable precedent than mandating the service of court processes and pleadings upon them. In either case, the interest of the creditor in seeing to it that the assets are being preserved and disposed of in accordance with the rules will be duly satisfied. Acknowledging their right to access the records, rather than entitling them to the service of every court order or pleading no matter how relevant to their individual claim, will be less cumbersome on the intestate court, the administrator and the heirs of the decedent, while providing a viable means by which the interests of the creditors in the estate are preserved.ςηαñrοblεš νιr υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

    Nonetheless, in the instances that the Rules on Special Proceedings do require notice to any or all "interested parties" the petitioners as "interested parties" will be entitled to such notice. The instances when notice has to be given to interested parties are provided in: (1) Sec. 10, Rule 85 in reference to the time and place of examining and allowing the account of the executor or administrator; (2) Sec. 7(b) of Rule 89 concerning the petition to authorize the executor or administrator to sell personal estate, or to sell, mortgage or otherwise encumber real estates; and; (3) Sec. 1, Rule 90 regarding the hearing for the application for an order for distribution of the estate residue. After all, even the administratrix has acknowledged in her submitted inventory, the existence of the pending cases filed by the petitioners.

    We now turn to the remaining reliefs sought by petitioners; that a deadline be set for the submission by administratrix Benedicto to submit a verified and complete inventory of the estate, and upon submission thereof: the inheritance tax appraisers of the Bureau of Internal Revenue be required to assist in the appraisal of the fair market value of the same; and that the intestate court set a deadline for the submission by the administratrix of her verified annual account, and, upon submission thereof, set the date for her examination under oath with respect thereto, with due notice to them and other parties interested in the collation, preservation and disposition of the estate. We cannot grant said reliefs.

    Section 1 of Rule 83 requires the administrator to return to the court a true inventory and appraisal of all the real and personal estate of the deceased within three (3) months from appointment, while Section 8 of Rule 85 requires the administrator to render an account of his administration within one (1) year from receipt of the letters testamentary or of administration. We do not doubt that there are reliefs available to compel an administrator to perform either duty, but a person whose claim against the estate is still contingent is not the party entitled to do so. Still, even if the administrator did delay in the performance of these duties in the context of dissipating the assets of the estate, there are protections enforced and available under Rule 88 to protect the interests of those with contingent claims against the estate.

    Concerning complaints against the general competence of the administrator, the proper remedy is to seek the removal of the administrator in accordance with Section 2, Rule 82. While the provision is silent as to who may seek with the court the removal of the administrator, we do not doubt that a creditor, even a contingent one, would have the personality to seek such relief. After all, the interest of the creditor in the estate relates to the preservation of sufficient assets to answer for the debt, and the general competence or good faith of the administrator is necessary to fulfill such purpose.

    All told, the ultimate disposition of the RTC and the Court of Appeals is correct. Nonetheless, as we have explained, petitioners should not be deprived of their prerogatives under the Rules on Special Proceedings as enunciated in this decision.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, subject to the qualification that petitioners, as persons interested in the intestate estate of Roberto Benedicto, are entitled to such notices and rights as provided for such interested persons in the Rules on Settlement of Estates of Deceased Persons under the Rules on Special Proceedings. No pronouncements as to costs.

    SO ORDERED.

    Endnotes:


    * Acting Chairperson.

    ** Per Special Order No. 619, Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro is hereby designated as additional member of the Second Division in lieu of Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, who is on official leave

    1 Rollo, p. 45.

    2 Id. at 13.

    3 Id. at 56.

    4 Id. at 67-69.

    5 Id. at 76-85A.

    6 Id. at 85-A.

    7 Id.

    8 Id. at 87.

    9 Id. at 101-104.

    10 Id. at 121-125.

    11 Id. at 132-133.

    12 Id. at 45-52. Decision penned by Associate Justice Amelita G Tolentino of the Sixteenth Division, and concurred in by Associate Justices Eloy R. Bello, Jr. and Magdangal M. De Leon.

    13 More particularly, the Rules on Settlement of Estates of Deceased Persons. See Rules 73 to 91, Revised Rules of Court.

    14 See rollo, p. 103.

    15 Id. at 124.

    16 Id. at 124-125.

    17 Batama Farmers' Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc., et al., v. Hon. Rosal, etc. et al., 149 Phil. 514, 519 (1971).

    18 See Section 1(a), Rule 72, Rules of Court.

    19 See Rules of Court, Rule 86, Secs. 1 & 3.

    20 See Aguas v. Llemos, et al., 116 Phil. 112 (1962); Leung Ben v. O'Brien, 38 Phil. 182, 189-194 (1918)

    21 88 Phil. 477 (1951).

    22 G.R. No. L-3342, 18 April 1951.

    23 Id. at 480-481.

    24 Baquial v. Amihan, 92 Phil. 501, 503 (1953); citing 2 Moran, 432, 1952 revised edition, citing the case of Intestate Estate of the Deceased Lee Liong, Dinglasan, et al. v. Ang Chia, et al., G.R. No. L-3342, April 18, 1951.

    25 G.R. No. 163155, 21 July 2006, 496 SCRA 282.

    26 Id. at 301

    G.R. No. 164108 - ALFREDO HILDAO, LOPEZ SUGAR CORPORATION, FIRST FARMERS HOLDING CORPORATION v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED