RULE 78 LETTERS TESTAMENTARY AND OF ADMINISTRATION, WHEN AND TO WHOM

ISSUED
GUERRERO v. TERAN (13 Phil 212)
Facts:
Guerrero, (as guardian of the minors Munoz) commenced an action against Teran to recover the sum
of P4,129.56 and costs. The amount represents the amount due by the estate of Antonio Munoz,
which Teran had been the administrator, to the minors Munoz.
The lower court found from the evidence that the estate of Antonio Munoz owed the plaintiff the sum
of P3,447.46.
Issue: Whether Teran is liable. Held:
No Teran is not liable. Teran was appointed as the administrator of the estate of
Antonio Sanchez and guardian of the minors Munoz only for the period September 17, 1901 to March
17, 1902. However, from March 18, 1902 to October 6, 1906, Teran was replaced by Maria Munoz as
the guardian of the minors Munoz.
Therefore, Maria Munoz is responsible to said minors for the administration of their interest in the
estate of Antonio Sanchez from the time of her acceptance of said appointment on March 18, 1902
up to the time of her removal on October 6, 1906 based on the ground that she was not a resident of
the Philippines. If during this time she allowed other persons to
handle the property of her wards and if any mismanagement or loss occurred thereby, the
responsibility must fall upon her. However, she may have a right of action against such persons for
any loss occasioned by their negligence or corruption.
Since the record did not disclose that any of the amounts claimed by the plaintiff arose during the
time while the said defendant was administering their interest therein, only the sum of P188.39 (the
amount acknowledged by defendant in the lower court as his liability)
Side issue: Appointment of Resident Administrators or Guardians
There is nothing in the law which requires the courts to appoint residents only as administrators or
guardians. However, notwithstanding that there is no statutory requirement, the courts should not
consent to the appointment of persons as administrators and guardians who are not personally
subject to the jurisdiction of our courts here.

SIOCA vs. GARCIA

LIM VS. DIAZ-MILLAREZ
OZAETA v. PECSON and BPI (93 Phil. 416)
Facts:
Carlos Palanca died leaving a will appointing Roman Ozaeta, former associate justice of the SC, as
executor if Manuel Roxas fails to qualify. Upon Palancas death, and Roxas having died previously,

Ozaeta presented a petition for the probate of the will, at the same time praying that he be appointed
special administrator. Some of the heirs of Palanca opposed the petition.
The court then appointed Philippine Trust Company, a non-applicant and a stranger to the
proceedings special administrator. Later on, Philippine Trust Company presented a petition to resign
as special administrator due to incompatibility of interest since it had granted a loan to Angel Palanca,
one of the heirs. The court then appointed Sebastian Palanca, one of the heirs, as special
administrator.
Subsequently, the court admitted the will to probate and appointed Ozaeta as regular administrator.
Pending the appeal of the order admitting the will to probate, the court appointed BPI as special
administrator.
Ozaeta claims that the reason why the judge refuses to appoint him as special administrator is due to
his personal dislike of him. However, the judge contends Ozaeta as biased to one group of heirs.
Issue: Whether a probate court, which had already admitted a will to probate, may appoint as special
administrator any person other than the executor named in the will.
Held: No, the executor named in a will should be appointed. Rule 81 of the Rules of Court grants
discretion to the probate court to appoint, or not to appoint, a special administrator. It is silent as to
the person who may be appointed as special administrator, unlike Rule 79 which expressly gives the
order of preference of the persons who may be appointed regular administrator. The appointment of
special administrators is not governed by the rules regarding the appointment of regular
administrators. But the fact that a judge is granted discretion does not authorize him to become
partial, or to make his personal likes and dislikes prevail over, or his passions to rule, his judgment.
And there is no reason why the same fundamental and legal principles governing the choice of a
regular administrator should not be taken into account in the appointment of the special administrator.
Based on US Jurisprudence, since the will appointing him regular administrator has been admitted to
probate by the trial judge, he should now be appointed special administrator during the pendency of
the appeal against the order admitting the will to probate. Mandamus lies to compel such
appointment.

MALOLES II VS. PHILIPPS, SUPRA

BACALSO VS. RAMOLETE
NITTSCHER VS. NITTSCHER
GABRIEL VS. CA ( see digest)