G.R. No. 18600; March 9, 1922
B. E. JOHANNES, husband of Carmen Theodora Johannes, deceased, as administrator; CARLOS D’ALMEIDA and IDA JOHANNES, with her husband, J. E. JOHANNES, relators, vs. Honorable GEORGE R. HARVEY, as judge of First Instance of Manila, ALFREDO D’ALMEIDA, brother of Carmen Johannes, as administrator, and PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, as late guardian for a certain cash deposit of Carmen Johannes, respondent.

FACTS

Carmen Theodora Johannes died intestate in Singapore. Her husband, B.E. Johannes, was appointed administrator of her estate in Singapore (the domiciliary administration). In the Philippines, where the deceased had a cash deposit, her brother Alfredo D’Almeida was appointed ancillary administrator by the Manila Court of First Instance. The husband and other heirs (relators) filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that the Manila judge acted in excess of jurisdiction by appointing an ancillary administrator and that such administration was unnecessary. They sought to annul the appointment and have the funds remitted directly to the domiciliary administrator.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction in appointing an ancillary administrator for the estate’s assets in the Philippines.

RULING

No. The Court of First Instance did not act in excess of its jurisdiction. It is a general rule that when a person dies intestate owning property in a foreign country, an ancillary administration in that country is proper, as a grant of administration from the domicile has no effect beyond its borders. The principal administration is in Singapore, and the proceedings in the Philippines are ancillary, governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. The appointment of an ancillary administrator is within the court’s discretion, considering factors like the suitability and residence of the applicant. Furthermore, an order appointing an administrator is a final and appealable order. Since the lower court acted within its jurisdiction and an appeal was available, the extraordinary writ of certiorari cannot be granted. The petition is dismissed.