SERAPIA DE GALA, petitioner-appellant, vs. APOLINARIO GONZALES and SINFOROSO ONA, opponents-appellants.

Facts:

On November 23, 1920, Severina Gonzales executed a will in which Serapia de Gala, a niece of Severina, was designated executrix. The testatrix died in November, 1926, leaving no heirs by force of law, and on December 2, 1926, Serapia, through her counsel, presented the will for probate. Apolinario Gonzales, a nephew of the deceased, filed an opposition to the will on the ground that it had not been executed in conformity with the provisions of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On April 2, 1927, Serapia de Gala was appointed special administratrix of the estate of the deceased. She returned an inventory of the estate on March 31, 1927, and made several demands upon Sinforoso Ona, the surviving husband of the deceased, for the delivery to her of the property inventoried and of which he was in possession.

On September 20, 1928, the Court of First Instance ordered Sinforoso Ona to deliver to Serapia de Gala all the property left by the deceased. Instead of delivering the property as ordered, Sinforoso filed a motion asking the appointment of Serapia de Gala as special administratrix be cancelled and that he, Sinforoso, be appointed in her stead. The motion was opposed by both Apolinario Gonzales and by Serapia de Gala, but on March 3, 1928, it was nevertheless granted, Serapia was removed, and Sinforoso was appointed special administrator in her place, principally on the ground that he had possession of the property in question and that his appointment would simplify the proceedings.

Issue:

W/N de Gala’s removal as an administratix is valid

Held:

The appointment of a special administrator lies entirely in the sound discretion of the court; the function of such an administrator is only to collect and preserve the property of the deceased and to return an inventory thereof; he cannot be sued by a creditor and cannot pay any debts of the deceased. The fact that no appeal can be taken from the appointment of a special administrator indicates that both his appointment and his removal are purely discretionary, and we cannot find that the court below abused its discretion in the present case. In removing Serapia de Gala and appointing the present possessor of the property pending the final determination of the validity of the will, the court probably prevented useless litigation.