CIRILO LIM, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. BASILISA DIAZ-MILLAREZ, OPPOSITOR-APPELLEE.

Cirilo Lim versus Basilisa Diaz-Millarez

The Case

This is the case of Cirilo Lim versus Basilisa Diaz-Millarez, decided by the Supreme Court in October 1966. Cirilo Lim sought appointment as judicial administrator of the estate of the late Jose Millarez, claiming to be a nephew of the deceased. Basilisa Diaz-Millarez opposed the petition, claiming to be the widow of the deceased. The case matters because it fixes the standard for who may serve as administrator of an estate: a person with an interest adverse to the estate, or hostile to those immediately interested in it, is unsuitable for the office. It also reminds us that the choice of administrator is committed, to a great extent, to the sound judgment of the appointing court.

Procedural History

Cirilo Lim filed his petition for appointment as judicial administrator with the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. Basilisa Diaz-Millarez filed an opposition. After several postponements, the trial court, on motion of both parties, dismissed the petition on the ground that a separate civil case between the same parties over the very properties of the estate was still pending on appeal. Lim moved for reconsideration, but the motion was denied. He then brought the matter to the Court of Appeals, which certified the appeal to the Supreme Court because no question of fact was involved. The Supreme Court reviewed the order of dismissal and affirmed it.

Facts

Jose Millarez died intestate on October 22, 1953. On February 26, 1954, Cirilo Lim, claiming to be a nephew of the deceased, filed a petition for his appointment as judicial administrator of the estate. He alleged that the deceased left no descendants, ascendants, or surviving spouse, only collaterals. Basilisa Diaz-Millarez opposed the petition, claiming to be the widow of the deceased. She asserted that the petitioner had an adverse interest in the estate, and that the estate properties were the subject of a pending civil case between her as plaintiff and Lim as defendant.

When the case was called for hearing on March 7, 1959, both parties manifested the existence of that separate civil case over the ownership of the estate properties. The trial court then issued an order dismissing the petition, noting that the case had been pending for more than five years without any administrator having been appointed, and that the parties could file a new application after the civil case was finally terminated.

Meanwhile, the civil case between the parties reached the Court of Appeals, which decided it on February 18, 1965. The Court of Appeals held that Basilisa was entitled to one-half of the estate of the late Jose because she had contributed labor and capital to a common fund with him from 1930 until his death in 1953. It remanded the case to the trial court for an accounting and for judgment adjudicating to Basilisa one-half of the capital and one-half of the profits and gains pertaining to the late Jose Millarez.

Issues

• Whether or not Cirilo Lim is suitable for appointment as judicial administrator of the estate of Jose Millarez, given his adverse interest in the estate and his hostility toward Basilisa Diaz-Millarez.
• Whether or not the trial court's order dismissing the petition for appointment of a judicial administrator should be sustained on appeal.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. Its ruling rests on the doctrine laid down in Sioca versus Garcia and Arevalo versus Bustamante, which the Court states as follows:

In this jurisdiction, one is considered to be unsuitable for appointment as administrator when he has adverse interest of some kind or hostility to those immediately interested in the estate.

This rule bears directly on the case because Lim's liability to Basilisa and to the estate made him unsuitable for the office.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Lim was unsuitable for appointment. The claim of Basilisa against Lim in the civil case was based on her declared right to one-half of the estate of the deceased. It could not therefore be denied that Lim, as a relative of the deceased, had some interest adverse to that of Basilisa. Having been shown to have some liabilities to Basilisa and to the estate as a whole, Lim could not compatibly perform the duties of an administrator. The Court applied the rule that one is considered unsuitable for appointment as administrator when he has an adverse interest of some kind or hostility to those immediately interested in the estate.

On the second issue, the Court held that the determination of a person's suitability for the office of judicial administrator rests, to a great extent, in the sound judgment of the court exercising the power of appointment, and that such judgment is not to be interfered with on appeal unless the court is clearly in error. Finding no such error, the Court affirmed the order appealed from.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, a person with an adverse interest of some kind, or hostility to those immediately interested in the estate, is unsuitable for appointment as judicial administrator. Second, the determination of a person's suitability for the office of judicial administrator rests, to a great extent, in the sound judgment of the appointing court, and that judgment will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court is clearly in error. These rules are tied to the Court's statement of the unsuitability standard quoted above.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal, with costs against Cirilo Lim as petitioner-appellant. Basilisa Diaz-Millarez prevailed.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is this: one is unsuitable as administrator when he has an adverse interest of some kind or hostility to those immediately interested in the estate. Examiners use this case to test the qualifications and suitability of a judicial administrator, and the deference given to the appointing court's sound judgment.