Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1923 > October 1923 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20902 October 9, 1923 - ROSARIO ESLER, ET AL. v. MARIA TAD-Y, ET AL.

046 Phil 854:



[G.R. No. L-20902. October 9, 1923. ]

Intestate estate of Vicente Tad-Y, deceased. ROSARIO ESLER, Vda. de Tad-Y, and JOSE E. TAD-Y, the latter being represented by his guardian ad litem, JUAN JAMORA, Petitioners-Appellants, v. MARIA TAD-Y, opponent-appellee, and MANUEL LOCSIN, administrator-appellee.

Lutero & Lutero for Appellants.

C. M. Zulueta for Appellees.


1. APPEAL; APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR. — No appeal lies from the appointment of special administrator under section 660 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. ID.; APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SECTION 642 OF ACT No. 190; DISCRETION. — In appointing an administrator in an intestate proceeding under section 642 of Act No. 190, it is discretionary on the part of the court to issue the letters of administration in favor of any of the persons therein mentioned, and unless there is an abuse of said discretion, the appointment will not be revoked on appeal.



In the intestate proceeding instituted in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for the settlement of the estate of the deceased Vicente Tad-Y, the Honorable Francisco Santamaria, judge, entered the following

"After hearing the testimony of the witness Vicente Sichon, presented as evidence by the proponent of the will of the deceased Vicente Tad-Y, the attorney for the proponent, Mr. Clemente Zulueta, withdrew his application for the probate of the document filed and attached to the record, as the will and testament of the deceased Vicente Tad-Y.

"Agreeably with this petition, the court orders this proceeding to continue for the settlement of the estate of the deceased Vicente Tad-Y, as an intestate estate.

"From the testimony presented January 27th of this year by the proponent Rosario Esler, it appears that her husband Vicente Tad-Y died on December 26, 1922, in the Mission Hospital in Iloilo leaving a will, which is the document alluded to by the witness Vicente Sichon when testifying at the trial of this case, and which document cannot be admitted to probate as a will because in its execution the solemnities required by the law were not complied with.

"On February 26, 1923, this court appointed Mr. Manuel Locsin as special administrator, he being one of the persons named by the testator Vicente Tad-Y as executors in his will attached to the record, which will cannot be probated in accordance with law.

"The administrator Mr. Manuel Locsin gave a bond in the sum of P10,000 for the faithful discharge of his office and took the oath of office on March 2d, last, letters of administration having been issued to him on the 5th of the said month of March.

"There being no ground whatever for revoking the appointment of Mr. Manuel Locsin, the court confirms said appointment and orders the bond formerly given in the sum of P10,000 to stand."cralaw virtua1aw library

From this order an appeal was taken by Rosario Esler Vda. de Tad-Y and the guardian ad litem of Jose E. Tad-Y, and their counsel in this court alleged that the trial court erred in appointing Manuel Locsin as administrator in this proceeding without the consent of Rosario Esler Vda. de Tad-Y and the minor Jose E. Tad-Y.

After considering the reasons given in the briefs of both parties, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the appeal is groundless. If the administrator Manuel Locsin was appointed by the court as special administrator, section 660 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not permit any appeal from the appointment of said administrator. If Manuel Locsin was appointed by the trial court as administrator of the intestate estate in accordance with section 642 of Act No. 190, the trial court had discretion to issue the letters of administration to any of the persons mentioned in said section, and unless there has been an abuse of discretion, which does not appear to have been committed in the present case, the appointment shall not be revoked on appeal.

Wherefore the order appealed from must be, as is hereby, affirmed with the costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Araullo, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :

October-1923 Jurisprudence                 


    045 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. 19843 October 3, 1923 - EL HOGAR FILIPINO v. GERONIMO PAREDES

    045 Phil 178


    045 Phil 202

  • G.R. Nos. 20674 & 20675 October 4, 1923 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO YABOT

    045 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. L-20902 October 9, 1923 - ROSARIO ESLER, ET AL. v. MARIA TAD-Y, ET AL.

    046 Phil 854

  • G.R. No. 20644 October 8, 1923 - JUAN PHEE v. LA VANGUARDIA

    045 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 20374 October 11, 1923 - LORENZO PECSON v. AGUSTIN CORONEL

    045 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 20721 October 12, 1923 - G. E. THOMPSON v. MOODY

    045 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. 20586 October 13, 1923 - SANTIAGO NAVARRO v. FELIX MALLARI

    045 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 20956 October 13, 1923 - TORIBIO ATILANO v. JULIAN INCLAN

    045 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-20600 October 16, 1923 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. APOLINARIO ABELLA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 857

  • G.R. No. 20783 October 16, 1923 - FELIX LAUREANO v. A. STEVENSON

    045 Phil 252

  • G.R. Nos. 19684 & 19685 October 17, 1923 - J. J. GO CHIOCO v. E. Martinez

    045 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. 20013 October 18, 1923 - ANDRES PUIG v. GEO. C. SELLNER

    045 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-20387 October 19, 1923 - MANUEL ROA, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    046 Phil 862

  • G.R. No. L-20731 October 22, 1923 - ANDRES GARCIA MAYORALGO v. PRIMITIVO JASON

    046 Phil 868

  • G.R. No. 20809 October 22, 1923 - GO JULIAN v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    045 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 20435 October 23, 1923 - LUIS ASIAN v. BENJAMIN JALANDONI

    045 Phil 296

  • G.R. No. 20874 October 23, 1923 - WISE & COMPANY v. GREGORIO C. LARION

    045 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. L-20651 October 25, 1923 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ANTONIA PATRICIO

    046 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. 20482 October 25, 1923 - PHIL. INDUSTRIAL CO. v. EL HOGAR FILIPINO

    045 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 21042 October 25, 1923 - DALMACIO COSTAS v. VICENTE ALDANESE

    045 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 20569 October 29, 1923 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. J. J. KOTTINGER

    045 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. 20794 October 30, 1923 - GROGORIO RAMOS v. DIONISIO RAMOS ET AL.

    045 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. 20955 October 30, 1923 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHONG CHUY LIMGOBO

    045 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 20189 October 31, 1923 - VALENTINA JOCSON v. ANTERO SORIANO

    045 Phil 375