Remedial Law Case Digest:

VICTORIO REYNOSO and JUAN REYNOSO, petitioners, vs. VICENTE SANTIAGO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, PIA REYNOSO, AGUSTINA REYNOSO, MELITON PALABRICA, LEONCIO CADIZ ET AL., respondents.

Facts:

On 1947, Leoncio Cadiz and other heirs of Salvadora Obispo presented an application in the Court of First Instance of Quezon for the administration of the property of the deceased, application which was docketed as intestate proceeding No. 2914. Victorio Reynoso and Juan Reynoso, Salvadora Obispo’s surviving spouse and eldest son, respectively, opposed the application and Aled a document, which purported to be the last will and testament of Salvadora Obispo, with a counterpetition for its probate. Upon trial the court rejected that instrument as a forgery, but on appeal the Court of Appeals reversed the Anding of the court below, found the will authentic and drawn with all the formalities of law.

 

Thereafter, Victorio Reynoso and Juan Reynoso Aled two petitions, one in special proceeding No. 2914 and another under a separate and new docket number (3107) and with a different title.  The first prayed that the special administrator, Meliton Palabrica, be ordered to turn over the properties of the deceased and the proceeds of coprax, nuts and other agricultural products to Victorio Reynoso, and to render an accounting within a reasonable time, and the closing of the intestate proceeding. The other petition prayed that the estate be administered and settled in special proceeding No. 3107 and that Victorio Reynoso be appointed executor of Salvadora Obispo’s last will and testament. It also contained a prayer for an accounting by Palabrica and delivery by him to the new executor of the properties that came to his possession including the proceeds from the sales of coprax, nuts, etc.

 

The above-mentioned petitions were decided by Judge Santiago separately. With respect to the opening of another expediente, His Honor believed that the proposed change or substitution was “not only unnecessary but inconvenient and expensive.” An intestate proceeding like special proceeding No. 2914, he said, could and should be converted into a testate proceeding in the same original expediente without the necessity of changing its number, name or title.

 

Issues:

• Whether the intestate proceeding be discontinued and a new one should be instituted
• Whether a regular executor be appointed

Rulings:

• The Court ruled that whether the intestate proceeding already commenced should be discontinued and a new proceeding under a separate number and title should be constituted is entirely a matter of form and lies within the sound discretion of the court. In no manner does it prejudice the substantial rights of any of the heirs or creditors. Amor propio is perhaps the only thing that is at stake on this phase of the controversy. Hence, the petition for the constitution of a separate proceeding for the administration of the estate under the will is denied.

• The Court ruled that an administrator should be appointed without delay in accordance with the final decision of the Court of Appeals. The appointment of a special administrator is justified only when there is delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration occasioned by an appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a will or some other cause. The Court of Appeals having decreed the probate of the will and the appointment of an albacea, there is no valid reason for the further retention of the special administrator. The appointment of a regular administrator is necessary for the prompt settlement and distribution of the estate. There are important duties devolving on a regular administrator which a special administrator cannot perform, and there are many actions to be taken by the court which could not be accomplished before a regular administrator is appointed. Hence, the petition for the appointment of a regular administrator is granted subject to the provision of section 6 of Rule 79 in the selection of the person to be appointed.

 

Takeaway: In this case, the special proceeding is applied purposely to expedite, and to promptly settle and distribute the estate.