RULE 80 #1 Maxima and the estate of Leonardo.
It, likewise, prayed A special administrator is an officer of the court
G.R. No. 187879
July 5, 2010
DALISAY E. OCAMPO, VINCE E. OCAMPO, MELINDA
CARLA E. OCAMPO, and LEONARDO E. OCAMPO, JR.,
Petitioners,
vs.
RENATO M. OCAMPO and ERLINDA M. OCAMPO,
Respondents.
NACHURA, J.:
Facts:
Petitioners Dalisay E. Ocampo (Dalisay), Vince E.
Ocampo (Vince), Melinda Carla E. Ocampo (Melinda), and
Leonardo E. Ocampo, Jr. (Leonardo, Jr.) are the surviving
wife and the children of Leonardo Ocampo (Leonardo),
who died on January 23, 2004. Leonardo and his siblings,
respondents Renato M. Ocampo (Renato) and Erlinda M.
Ocampo (Erlinda) are the legitimate children and only
heirs of the spouses Vicente and Maxima Ocampo, who
died intestate on December 19, 1972 and February 19,
1996, respectively. Vicente and Maxima left several
properties, mostly situated in Biñan, Laguna. Vicente and
Maxima left no will and no debts.
On June 24, 2004, five (5) months after the
death of Leonardo, petitioners initiated a petition for
intestate proceedings, entitled In Re: Intestate
Proceedings of the Estate of Sps. Vicente Ocampo and
Maxima Mercado Ocampo, and Leonardo M. Ocampo, in
the RTC, Branch 24, Biñan, Laguna, docketed as Spec. Proc.
No. B-3089. The petition alleged that, upon the death of
Vicente and Maxima, respondents and their brother
Leonardo jointly controlled, managed, and administered
the estate of their parents. Under such circumstance,
Leonardo had been receiving his share consisting of one-
third (1/3) of the total income generated from the
properties of the estate. However, when Leonardo died,
respondents took possession, control and management of
the properties to the exclusion of petitioners. The petition
prayed for the settlement of the estate of Vicente and
Special Proceedings RULE 80: Special Administrator
for the appointment of an administrator to apportion,
divide, and award the two estates among the lawful heirs
of the decedents.
After long side by side filing of motions, petitions
and oppositions, Renato and Erlinda were appointed as
special administrators but refused to give an inventory of
properties as petitioned by herein petitioners until after
the court ruled in their petition for exemption in posting a
bond. Meanwhile, petitioners subsequently learned that
respondents has disposed of real properties for
P2,700,000.00 saying it was only for P1,500,000.00 then
move the court through a petition in removing the
respondents as administrators and proceed to partitioning
the estate. The RTC ruled in the affirmative and appointed
Melinda as regular administrator conditioned with the
posting of P200,000.00 as bond which the later complied.
The respondents appealed in the CA and they received a
favorable decision reversing and setting aside the decision
of the RTC.
Issue:
Whether the court should have acted with grave
abuse of discretion in revoking and terminating the
appointment of Renato and Erlinda as joint special
administrators, on account of their failure to comply with
its Order, particularly the posting of the required bond,
and to enter their duties and responsibilities as special
administrators and in appointing Melinda as regular
administratrix, subject to the posting of a bond in the
amount of P200,000.00.
Ruling:
The court ruled that the trial court did not act
with grave abuse of discretion in revoking the
appointment of the respondents as special administrators
and otherwise in appointing Melinda as regular
administrator opining and ordering that she should instead
be appointed as special administration as according to the
rules.
CASE DIGEST
who is subject to its supervision and control, expected to
work for the best interest of the entire estate, with a view
to its smooth administration and speedy settlement.
When appointed, he or she is not regarded as an agent or
representative of the parties suggesting the appointment.
The principal object of the appointment of a temporary
administrator is to preserve the estate until it can pass to
the hands of a person fully authorized to administer it for
the benefit of creditors and heirs, pursuant to Section 2 of
Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.
While the RTC considered that respondents
were the nearest of kin to their deceased parents in their
appointment as joint special administrators, this is not a
mandatory requirement for the appointment. It has long
been settled that the selection or removal of special
administrators is not governed by the rules regarding the
selection or removal of regular administrators. The
probate court may appoint or remove special
administrators based on grounds other than those
enumerated in the Rules at its discretion, such that the
need to first pass upon and resolve the issues of fitness or
unfitness and the application of the order of preference
under Section 6 of Rule 78, as would be proper in the case
of a regular administrator, do not obtain. As long as the
discretion is exercised without grave abuse, and is based
on reason, equity, justice, and legal principles, interference
by higher courts is unwarranted. The appointment or
removal of special administrators, being discretionary, is
thus interlocutory and may be assailed through a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 81, the bond
secures the performance of the duties and obligations of
an administrator namely: (1) to administer the estate and
pay the debts; (2) to perform all judicial orders; (3) to
account within one (1) year and at any other time when
required by the probate court; and (4) to make an
inventory within three (3) months. More specifically, per
Section 4 of the same Rule, the bond is conditioned on the
faithful execution of the administration of the decedents
estate requiring the special administrator to (1) make and
return a true inventory of the goods, chattels, rights,
credits, and estate of the deceased which come to his
Page 1 of 4
possession or knowledge; (2) truly account for such as
received by him when required by the court; and (3)
deliver the same to the person appointed as executor or
regular administrator, or to such other person as may be
authorized to receive them.
Verily, the administration bond is for the benefit
of the creditors and the heirs, as it compels the
administrator, whether regular or special, to perform the
trust reposed in, and discharge the obligations incumbent
upon, him. Its object and purpose is to safeguard the
properties of the decedent, and, therefore, the bond
should not be considered as part of the necessary
expenses chargeable against the estate, not being included
among the acts constituting the care, management, and
settlement of the estate. Moreover, the ability to post the
bond is in the nature of a qualification for the office of
administration.
RULE 80 Case # 2
G.R. No. 162934 November 11, 2005
HEIRS OF BELINDA DAHLIA A. CASTILLO, namely, BENA
JEAN, DANIEL, MELCHOR, MICHAEL and DANIBEL, all
surnamed CASTILLO, Petitioners,
vs. DOLORES LACUATA-GABRIEL, Respondent.
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
FACTS: On January 25, 1989, Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel, wife
of Lorenzo B. Almoradie, died in Malabon City, Metro
Manila, leaving behind a sizable inheritance consisting
mostly of real estate and shares of stock.
Her mother, Crisanta Santiago Vda. de Yanga, commenced
an intestate proceeding before the RTC of Malabon City,
Branch 72, docketed as SP No. 192-MN. She alleged that to
her knowledge, her daughter died intestate leaving an
estate and that such was being managed by her wastrel
and incompetent son-in-law, Lorenzo, and by two other
equally incompetent persons.
She prayed that letters of administration be issued to
Mariano Yanga, Jr., brother of the deceased, and that she
be awarded her share of the estate after due
Special Proceedings RULE 80: Special Administrator
hearing. However, the RTC appointed Lorenzo (the
husband of the deceased) as administrator.
Meantime, the marriage between Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel
and Lorenzo Almoradie was declared void for being
bigamous. Lorenzo was removed as administrator and
Mariano, Jr. was appointed in his stead.
On October 16, 1989, one Belinda Dahlia Y. Almoradie
Castillo, claiming to be the only legitimate child of Lorenzo
and Crisanta, filed a motion for intervention.
On November 3, 1989, Roberto Y. Gabriel, the legally
adopted son of Crisanta Y. Gabriel, filed before the RTC of
Malabon City a petition for probate of an alleged will and
for the issuance of letters testamentary in his favor. The
petition was docketed as Spec. Proc. No. 211-MN. He
alleged that he discovered his mother’s will on October 25,
1989 in which he was instituted as the sole heir of the
testatrix, and designated as alternate executor for the
named executor therein, Francisco S. Yanga, a brother of
Crisanta, who had predeceased the latter sometime in
1985 or 1986.
On June 2, 1990, Belinda Castillo (the one claiming to be
the legitimate child) died.
The two (2) special proceedings were consolidated. On
May 15, 1991, the RTC issued an Order dismissing Spec.
Proc. No. 192-MN. Mariano Yanga, Jr. questioned the
dismissal of the intestate proceedings before the appellate
court via a petition for certiorari but the same was
dismissed by the CA.
On July 8, 1991, the probate court appointed Roberto Y.
Gabriel as special administrator of his mother’s estate.
On May 23, 2001, the heirs of Belinda, namely, Bena Jean,
Daniel, Melchor, Michael, and Danibel, all surnamed
Castillo, filed a Motion praying that they be substituted as
party-litigants in lieu of their late mother Belinda, who
died in 1990.
On April 16, 2001, Roberto Gabriel died. His widow,
Dolores L. Gabriel, filed a "Manifestation and Motion"
where she informed the probate court of her husband’s
CASE DIGEST
death and prayed that she be admitted as substitute in
place of her late husband.
On August 14, 2001, the heirs of Belinda opposed Dolores’
manifestation and motion. They averred that Dolores was
not Crisanta Gabriel’s next of kin.
On August 24, 2001, Bena Jean filed a "Motion for
Appointment as Administrator of the Estate of Crisanta Y.
Gabriel" praying that she be appointed administratrix of
the estate of her grandmother Crisanta.
On October 11, 2001, Dolores opposed the motion of Bena
Jean, claiming that the latter has neither proven her
kinship with Crisanta Gabriel nor shown any particular
qualification to act as administratrix of the estate.
On December 5, 2001, the lower court appointed Dolores
as special administratrix upon a bond of P200,000.00.
According to the trial court, movant Dolores L. Gabriel has
amply proven her kinship with petitioner Roberto Y.
Gabriel, and therefore her kinship, by operation of law,
with decedent Crisanta Y. Gabriel.
The heirs of Belinda moved to reconsider but the same
was denied by the probate court.
The said heirs filed with the CA a petition
for certiorari with prayer for a temporary restraining order
or/and preliminary injunction against Dolores and the
probate court, praying that Bena Jean be appointed as the
regular administratrix of Crisanta Gabriel’s estate.
The CA dismissed and ruled that the probate court did not
commit grave abuse of discretion in appointing Dolores as
special administratrix. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not there’s propriety in the
appointment of the Private Respondent as a Special
Administratix of the estate left by Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel
in the case at bar?
RULING: Yes.
The facts of this case show that Roberto Gabriel – the
legally adopted son of Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel – survived
Crisanta’s death. When Crisanta died on January 25, 1989,
Page 2 of 4
her estate passed on to her surviving adopted son
Roberto. When Roberto himself later died on April 16,
2001, pursuant to the law on succession, his own estate
which he inherited from Crisanta passed on to his surviving
widow, private respondent.
While it is true, as petitioners submit, that private
respondent is neither a compulsory nor a legal heir of
Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel and is considered a third person to
the estate of Crisanta, nonetheless, private respondent is
undeniably entitled to the administration of the said
estate because she is an heir of her husband Roberto,
whose estate is the former estate of his adopting mother
Crisanta.
The ruling of the CA is correct. The Court has repeatedly
held that the appointment of a special administrator lies in
the sound discretion of the probate court. A special
administrator is a representative of a decedent appointed
by the probate court to care for and preserve his estate
until an executor or general administrator is appointed.
When appointed, a special administrator is regarded not
as a representative of the agent of the parties suggesting
the appointment, but as the administrator in charge of the
estate, and, in fact, as an officer of the court. As such
officer, he is subject to the supervision and control of the
probate court and is expected to work for the best
interests of the entire estate, especially its smooth
administration and earliest settlement.
The principal object of appointment of temporary
administrator is to preserve the estate until it can pass into
hands of person fully authorized to administer it for the
benefit of creditors and heirs.
Section 1, Rule 80 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
Section 1. Appointment of Special Administrator. – When
there is delay in granting letters testamentary or of
administration by any cause including an appeal from the
allowance or disallowance of a will, the court may appoint
a special administrator to take possession and charge of
the estate of the deceased until the questions causing the
delay are decided and executors or administrators
appointed.
Special Proceedings RULE 80: Special Administrator
The new Rules have broadened the basis for the
appointment of an administrator, and such appointment is
allowed when there is delay in granting letters
testamentary or administration by any cause, e.g., parties
cannot agree among themselves. Nevertheless, the
discretion to appoint a special administrator or not lies in
the probate court.
The basis for appointing a special administrator under the
Rules is broad enough to include any cause or reason for
the delay in granting letters testamentary or of
administration as where a contest as to the will is being
carried on in the same or in another court, or where there
is an appeal pending as to the proceeding on the removal
of an executor or administrator, or in cases where the
parties cannot agree among themselves. Likewise, when
from any cause general administration cannot be
immediately granted, a special administrator may be
appointed to collect and preserve the property of the
deceased.
It is obvious that the phrase "by any cause" includes those
incidents which transpired in the instant case clearly
showing that there is a delay in the probate of the will and
that the granting of letters testamentary will consequently
be prolonged necessitating the immediate appointment of
a special administrator.
As enunciated above, the probate court has ample
jurisdiction to appoint respondent as special
administratrix. The deceased Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel left a
document purporting to be her will where her adopted
son, Roberto, was named as the sole heir of all her
properties. However, pending probate of the will, Roberto
died leaving his widow, the respondent herein, as his sole
heir. Thus, the respondent has much stake in Crisanta’s
estate in case the latter’s will is allowed probate.
It needs to be emphasized that in the appointment of a
special administrator (which is but temporary and subsists
only until a regular administrator is appointed), the
probate court does not determine the shares in the
decedent’s estate, but merely appoints who is entitled to
administer the estate. The issue of heirship is one to be
determined in the decree of distribution, and the findings
of the court on the relationship of the parties in the
administration as to be the basis of distribution. Thus, the
CASE DIGEST
preference of respondent is sound, that is, not whimsical,
or contrary to reason, justice, equity or legal principle.
 Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court is not
applicable in the case at bar. The rule refers to
the appointment of regular administrators of
estates; Section 1, Rule 80, on the other hand,
applies to the appointment of a special
administrator. It has long been settled that the
appointment of special administrators is not
governed by the rules regarding the
appointment of regular administrators.
 On the plea of the petitioners for this Court to
appoint their co-petitioner, Bena Jean Castillo,
as the regular administratrix of the estate of
Crisanta Yanga-Gabriel, the matter should be
addressed to the probate court for its
consideration. It is not for this Court to preempt
the discretion of the probate court and appoint
a regular administrator in the present action.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
RULE 80 #3
Tan vs Gedorio
G.R. No. 166520 March 14, 2008
Facts: Upon the death of Gerardo Tan on Oct. 14, 2000,
private respondents Rogelo Lim Suga and Helen Tan
Racoma, who were claiming to be the children of the
decedent moved for the appointment of their attorney-in-
fact, Romualdo Lim as special administrator. This was
opposed by the petitioner Vilma Tan, Jake Tan and
Geraldine Tan, claiming that none of the respondents can
be appointed since they are not residing in the country,
that Romualdo does not have the same competence as
Vilma Tan who was already acting as the de facto
administratrix of the estate, and that the nearest of kin,
being the legitmate children, is preferred in the choice of
administrator (claiming that the respondent were
illegitmate children).
However, upon failure of Vilma to follow a court directive
to account for the income of the estate, the court granted
Romualdo's appointment as special administrator.
Page 3 of 4
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals and was
denied, hence the petition for review on certiorari.

Issue: Whether or not the court violated Sec. 6, Rule 78 of

the Rules of Court in their selection of a special
administrator.

Ruling: The preference under Section 6, Rule 78 of the

Rules of Court for the next of kin refers to the
appointment of a regular administrator, and not of a
special administrator, as the appointment of the latter lies
entirely in the discretion of the court, and is not
appealable.

If petitioners really desire to avail themselves of the order

of preference , they should pursue the appointment of a
regular administrator and put to an end the delay which
necessitated the appointment of a special administrator.

COMMENT:

The court was correct in granting the appointment of

Romualdo as specialadministrator since it was shown that
Vilma was in remiss after failing to follow the series
of directives and extension given to her to account for the
estate.

Special Proceedings RULE 80: Special Administrator CASE DIGEST Page 4 of 4