G.R. No. 118671 ; January 29, 1996
The Estate of Hilario M. Ruiz, Edmond Ruiz, Executor, petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals, Maria Pilar Ruiz-Montes, Maria Cathryn Ruiz, Candice Albertine Ruiz, Maria Angeline Ruiz and The Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, respondents.

FACTS

Hilario M. Ruiz died on April 12, 1988, leaving a holographic will naming his son Edmond Ruiz as executor and bequeathing his estate to Edmond, his adopted daughter Maria Pilar Ruiz-Montes, and his three granddaughters. The cash component was distributed, but Edmond did not initiate probate. In 1992, Montes filed for probate, which Edmond initially opposed but later withdrew. The will was admitted, and letters testamentary were issued to Edmond. A key estate property, bequeathed to the three granddaughters, was leased by Edmond, who deposited the rent with the court.
Subsequently, the Estate, through Edmond, moved for the release of the deposited rental funds for estate administration. Montes opposed and filed her own motion, praying for the release of the rent to the granddaughters and the distribution of the specific properties bequeathed to them and to her. The probate court denied the Estate’s motion and granted Montes’s, ordering the release of rent to the granddaughters and the delivery of property titles upon bond. Upon reconsideration, the court modified its order, allowing Edmond to withdraw funds only for necessary administration expenses and support for the granddaughters, subject to collation, and holding the release of titles in abeyance until after the creditor’s period.

ISSUE

Whether the probate court committed grave abuse of discretion in its modified order concerning the release of rental funds and property titles during the pendency of the testate proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals with modification. The probate court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering that the rental funds could only be withdrawn for necessary administration expenses, as this is within its authority to ensure proper estate management under Rule 85 of the Rules of Court. The executor’s possession is for purposes of administration and preservation, and all expenses require court approval for veracity and propriety.
However, the Court annulled the portions of the order granting a support allowance to the grandchildren and holding the release of titles in abeyance solely due to the creditor’s period. The right to support from an estate under Article 188 of the Civil Code pertains only to the surviving spouse and compulsory heirs; the grandchildren here are not compulsory heirs as their father, the compulsory heir, is alive. Furthermore, the distribution of specific legacies, like the titles, is governed by Rule 90, Section 1, which allows delivery at any time before, during, or after the settlement upon a sufficient bond, provided it is no longer necessary for paying estate obligations. The lapse of the creditor’s period is not an absolute prerequisite. The probate court must determine if the properties are needed for debts and expenses before ordering delivery.