Tuesday, March 1, 2016

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.



Facts:

Petitioners are the surviving wife and the children of Leonardo Ocampo, who died on January 23, 2004. Leonardo and his siblings, respondents Renato and 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 Bian, 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 of the properties of Leonardo, and spouses Vicente and Maxima. The petition alleged that, 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 Maxima and the estate of Leonardo. It, likewise, prayed for the appointment of an administrator to apportion, divide, and award the two estates among the lawful heirs of the decedents. 

In its June 15, 2006 Order, the RTC appointed Dalisay and Renato as special joint administrators of the estate of the deceased spouses, and required them to post a bond ofP200,000.00 each. The respondents contend upon the same.

In its Order dated February 16, 2007, the RTC revoked the appointment of Dalisay as co-special administratrix, substituting her with Erlinda. The RTC took into consideration the fact that respondents were the nearest of kin of Vicente and Maxima. Petitioners did not contest this Order and even manifested in open court their desire for the speedy settlement of the estate. On April 23, 2007, or two (2) months after respondents appointment as joint special administrators, petitioners filed a Motion for an Inventory and to Render Account of the Estate, reiterating their stance that respondents, as joint special administrators, should be directed to submit a true inventory of the income and assets of the estate.

Respondents then filed a Motion for Exemption to File Administrators Bond praying that they be allowed to enter their duties as special administrators without the need to file an administrators bond due to their difficulty in raising the necessary amount.
In an Order dated June 29, 2007, the RTC directed the parties to submit their respective comments or oppositions to the pending incidents, i.e., petitioners Motion for Inventory and to Render Account, and respondents Motion for Exemption to File Administrators Bond.

Respondents filed their Comment and/or Opposition, stating that they have already filed a comment on petitioners Motion for Inventory and to Render Account. They asserted that the RTC should, in the meantime, hold in abeyance the resolution of this Motion, pending the resolution of their Motion for Exemption to File Administrators Bond.

On October 15, 2007, petitioners filed a Motion to Terminate or Revoke the Special Administration and to Proceed to Judicial Partition or Appointment of Regular Administrator.Petitioners contended that the special administration was not necessary as the estate is neither vast nor complex, the properties of the estate being identified and undisputed, and not involved in any litigation necessitating the representation of special administrators. Petitioners, likewise, contended that respondents had been resorting to the mode of special administration merely to delay and prolong their deprivation of what was due them. Petitioners cited an alleged fraudulent sale by respondents of a real property for P2,700,000.00, which the latter represented to petitioners to have been sold only for P1,500,000.00, and respondents alleged misrepresentation that petitioners owed the estate for the advances to cover the hospital expenses of Leonardo, but, in fact, were not yet paid. 

In its Order dated March 13, 2008, the RTC granted petitioners Motion, 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, i.e., the submission of an inventory of the properties and of an income statement of the estate. The RTC also appointed Melinda as regular administratrix, subject to the posting of a bond in the amount of P200,000.00, and directed her to submit an inventory of the properties and an income statement of the subject estate. The RTC likewise found that judicial partition may proceed after Melinda had assumed her duties and responsibilities as regular administratrix.

Issues:

1.W/N the RTC is correct when it revoked respondents appointment as special administrators for failing to post their administrators’ bond and to submit an inventory and accounting as required of them.

2. W/N the appointment of Melinda as a regular administratix is proper.

Held:

1.The RTC is correct. 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.


2. The Court finds the RTCs designation of Melinda as regular administratrix improper and abusive of its discretion. Admittedly, there was no petition for letters of administration with respect to Melinda, as the prayer for her appointment as co-administrator was embodied in the motion for the termination of the special administration. However, having in mind the objective of facilitating the settlement of the estate of Vicente and Maxima, with a view to putting an end to the squabbles of the heirs, we take into account the fact that Melinda, pursuant to the RTC Order dated March 13, 2008, already posted the required bond of P200,000.00 on March 26, 2008, by virtue of which, Letters of Administration were issued to her the following day, and that she filed an Inventory of the Properties of the Estate dated April 15, 2008. These acts clearly manifested her intention to serve willingly as administratrix of the decedents estate, but her appointment should be converted into one of special administration, pending the proceedings for regular administration. Furthermore, since it appears that the only unpaid obligation is the hospital bill due from Leonardo’s estate, which is not subject of this case, judicial partition may then proceed with dispatch.


No comments:

Post a Comment