Facts:
Pablo M. Roxas died leaving
properties in Bulacan. The other respondents Maria and Pedro Roxas, sister and
brother respectively of the deceased, filed on August 3, 1946, a petition for
the administration of the latter's estate, in special intestate proceeding No.
1707 of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, and Maria Roxas was appointed
special administratrix upon an ex-parte petition. On August 10 1946, Natividad Vda. de Roxas,
widow of Pablo M. Roxas, filed a petition for the probate of an alleged will of
her deceased husband, and for her appointment as executrix of his estate.
The petitioner
was appointed on September 10, 1946, special administratrix and qualified as
such over the objection of the respondents Maria and Pedro Roxas, who sought
the appointment of Maria as such. The said respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the court
appointing the petitioner as special administratrix, with an alternative prayer
that Maria Roxas be appointed as special co-administratrix, which motion was
not acted upon.The respondent judge rendered a decision denying the probate of
the will on the ground that the
attesting witnesses did not sign their respective names in the presence of the
testator.
On December 29, 1947, the respondents Maria and Pedro Roxas renewed
their petition for the appointment of Maria Roxas as special administratrix or
special co-administratrix, and on May 5, 1948, the respondent judge rendered
his resolution appointing the petitioner Natividad I. Vda. de Roxas as special
administratrix only of all the conjugal properties of the deceased, and Maria
Roxas as special administratrix of all capital or properties belonging
exclusively to the deceased Pablo M. Roxas.
Issue:
W/N the respondent judge acted in
excess of the court's jurisdiction in appointing two special co-administratices
of the estate of Pablo Roxas, one of the capital or properties belonging
exclusively to the deceased, and another of his conjugal properties with his wife.
Held:
There is nothing wrong in that the
respondent judge, in exercising his discretion and appointing the petitioner as
special administratrix, had taken into consideration the beneficial interest of
the petitioner in the estate of the decedent and her being designated in the
will as executrix thereof. But the respondent's subsequent act of appointing
her as special administratrix only of the conjugal or community property, and
Maria Roxas as special administratrix of the capital or exclusive property of
the decedent, does not seem to be in conformity with logic or reason. There is
absolutely no reason for appointing two separate administrators, especially if
the estate to be settled is that of a deceased husband as in the present case.
As under the law only one general administrator may be appointed to administer,
liquidate and distribute the estate of a deceased spouse, it clearly follows
that only one special administrator may be appointed to administer temporarily
said estate, because a special administrator is but a temporary administrator
who is appointed to act in lieu of the general administrator.
No comments:
Post a Comment