G.R. No. 59821. August 30, 1982
ROWENA F. CORONA, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ROMARICO G. VITUG, AVELINO L. CASTILLO, NICANOR CASTILLO, KATHLEEN D. LUCHANGCO, GUILLERMO LUCHANGCO, JR. ANTONIO LUCHANG…
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
Appeals[1] (CA-G.R. No. 12404-SP) of
August 11, 1981, upholding the appointment by the Court of First Instance of
Rizal, Pasig, Branch VI, of respondent Romarico G. Vitug, as Special
Administrator, although in the Will of his deceased wife, she had disinherited
him, as well as the Appellate Court’s Resolution of February 17, 1982 denying
reconsideration.
On November 10, 1980, Dolores Luchangco Vitug died in New York, U.S.A.,
leaving two Wills: one, a holographic Will dated October 3, 1980, which excluded
her husband, respondent Romarico G. Vitug, as one of her heirs, and the other, a
formal Will sworn to on October 24, 1980, or about three weeks thereafter, which
expressly disinherited her husband Romarico “for reason of his improper and
immoral conduct amounting to concubinage, which is a ground for legal separation
under Philippine Law”; bequeathed her properties in equal shares to her sisters
Exaltacion L. Allarde, Vicenta L. Faustino and Gloria L. Teoxon, and her nieces
Rowena F. Corona and Jennifer F. Way; and appointed Rowena F. Corona, herein
petitioner, as her Executrix.
On November 21, 1980, Rowena filed a petition for the probate of the Wills
before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VI (Spec. Procs. No. 9398),
and for the appointment of Nenita P. Alonte as Administrator because she
(Rowena) is presently employed in the United Nations in New York City.
On December 2, 1980, upon Rowena’s urgent Motion, the Probate Court appointed
Nenita P. Alonte as Special Administratrix, upon a P100,000.00 bond.
On December 12, 1980, the surviving husband, Romarico Vitug, filed an
“Opposition and Motion” and prayed that the Petition for Probate be denied and
that the two Wills be disallowed on the ground that they were procured through
undue and improper pressure and influence, having been executed at a time when
the decedent was seriously ill and under the medical care of Dr. Antonio P.
Corona, petitioner’s husband, and that the holographic Will impaired his
legitime. Romarico further prayed for his appointment as Special Administrator
because the Special Administratrix appointed is not related to the heirs and has
no interest to be protected, besides, the surviving spouse is qualified to
administer.
Oppositions to probate with almost identical arguments and prayers were also
filed by respondent (1) Avelino L. Castillo and Nicanor Castillo, legitimate
children of Constancia Luchangco, full blood sister of the decedent; (2)
Guillermo Luchangco, full blood brother of the decedent; (3) Rodolfo Torres,
Reynaldo Torres, and Purisima Torres Polintan, all legitimate children of the
deceased Lourdes Luchangco Torres, full blood sister of the decedent.
On December 18, 1980, Nenita P. Alonte posted her bond and took her oath of
office before a Notary Public.
On February 6, 1981, the Probate Court set aside its Order of December 2,
1980 appointing Nenita as Special Administratrix, and appointed instead the
surviving husband, Romarico, as Special Administrator with a bond of
P200,000.00, essentially for the reasons that under Section 6, Rule 78, of the
Rules of Court, the surviving spouse is first in the order of preference for
appointment as Administrator as he has an interest in the estate; that the
disinheritance of the surviving spouse is not among the grounds of
disqualification for appointment as Administrator; that the next of kin is
appointed only where the surviving spouse is not competent or is unwilling to
serve besides the fact that the Executrix appointed, is not the next of kin but
merely a niece, and that the decedent’s estate is nothing more than half of the
unliquidated conjugal partnership property.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration with an alternate Motion for the
appointment of co-Special Administrators to which private respondents filed
their Opposition. Reconsideration having been denied, petitioner resorted to a
Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals to annul, for
having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, the Order setting aside the
appointment of Nenita as Special Administratrix and appointing in her stead the
surviving spouse Romarico.
On August 11, 1981, the Court of Appeals found no grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the Probate Court and dismissed the Petition stating that the
Probate Court strictly observed the order of preference established by the
Rules; that petitioner though named Executrix in the alleged Will, declined the
trust and instead nominated a stranger as Special Administrator; that the
surviving husband has legitimate interests to protect which are not adverse to
the decedent’s estate which is merely part of the conjugal property; and that
disinheritance is not a disqualification to appointment as Special Administrator
besides the fact that the legality of the disinheritance would involve a
determination of the intrinsic validity of the Will which is decidedly premature
at this stage.
On March 24, 1982, petitioner elevated the case to this Court for review on
Certiorari after her Motion for Reconsideration was turned down by the
Court of Appeals.
Petitioner stresses that the order of preference laid down in the Rules
should not be followed where the surviving spouse is expressly disinherited,
opposes probate, and clearly possesses an adverse interest to the estate which
would disqualify him from the trust.
The three sets of Oppositors, all respondents herein, in the Comments which
they respectively filed, essentially claimed lack of grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the Appellate Court in upholding the appointment of the surviving
husband as Special Administrator; that Certiorari is improper and
unavailing as the appointment of a Special Administrator is discretionary with
the Court and is unappealable; that co-administratorship is impractical and
unsound and as between the surviving husband, who was responsible for the
accumulation of the estate by his acumen and who must be deemed to have a
beneficial interest in the entire estate, and a stranger, respondent Court had
made the correct choice; and that the legality of the disinheritance made by the
decedent cannot affect the appointment of a Special Administrator.
This Court, in resolving to give due course to the Petition taking into
account the allegations, arguments and issues raised by the parties, is of the
considered opinion that petitioner’s nominee, Nenita F. Alonte, should be
appointed as co-Special Administrator. The executrix’s choice of Special
Administrator, considering her own inability to serve and the wide latitude of
discretion given her by the testatrix in her Will (Annex “A-1), is entitled to
the highest consideration. Objections to Nenita’s appointment on grounds of
impracticality and lack of kinship are overshadowed by the fact that justice and
equity demand that the side of the deceased wife and the faction of the
surviving husband be represented in the management of the decedent’s estate.[2]
En passant, it is apropos to remind the Special Administrators that
while they may have respective interests to protect, they are officers of the
Court subject to the supervision and control of the Probate Court and are
expected to work for the best interests of the entire estate, its smooth
administration, and its earliest settlement.
WHEREFORE, modifying the judgment under review, the Court of
First Instance of Rizal, Branch VI, is hereby ordered, in Special Proceedings
No. 9398 pending before it, to appoint Nenita F. Alonte as co-Special
Administrator, properly bonded, who shall act as such jointly with the other
Special Administrator on all matters affecting the estate.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar,
Plana, Vasquez, and Relova, JJ., concur.
Gutierrez, Jr.,
J., no part.
[1] Penned by Justice Mama D. Busran and
concurred in by Justices Guillermo P. Villasor and Jose A. R. Melo.
[2] Matias vs. Gonzales, 101 Phil. 853
(1957).