GR L 5236; (May, 1953) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5236; May 25, 1953
Intestate estate of the deceased Luis Morales, JOSE TORRES, petitioner, vs. PEDRO DE JESUS, administrator-appellee, and HERMENEGILDA SICAT VDA. DE MORALES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
On August 25, 1950, Luis Morales, married to Hermenegilda Sicat, died in Tarlac. Seven days later, Jose Torres, alleging to be a creditor of the conjugal partnership, filed a petition for the settlement of the estate, seeking the appointment of Atty. Pedro B. De Jesus as administrator. Twelve days later, the widow, Hermenegilda Sicat Vda. de Morales, opposed the petition and claimed her preferential right to be appointed as administratrix, stating that the only close relatives and forced heirs were herself and their six legitimate minor children. The petitioner presented evidence, but the oppositor submitted none. The trial judge, disregarding the statutory preference for the surviving widow, issued an order on August 16, 1951, appointing Atty. Pedro B. De Jesus as administrator. The widow appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in disregarding the surviving widow’s preferential right to be appointed administratrix of her deceased husband’s estate under Rule 79, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, based on her alleged unsuitability due to hostility towards creditors.
RULING
No, the trial court erred. The order appointing Atty. Pedro B. De Jesus is annulled. The surviving widow, Hermenegilda Sicat Vda. de Morales, has the superior right to appointment as administratrix under Rule 79, Section 6(a). The Court held that the trial judge’s reason for disregarding her preference—that she was unsuitable due to hostility towards creditors because she disputed their claims—was not a positive and clear ground for unsuitability. Requiring creditors to prove their claims before honoring them is not necessarily dishonest or contrary to the interests of real creditors; it is even proper for a proposed administrator to oppose or require competent proof of claims advanced against the estate. The stage for presenting and contesting claims arises only after the regular administrator is appointed under Rule 87. The appealed order itself conceded the widow was fully competent to administer the estate. Therefore, her attitude did not constitute the antagonism required to set aside the statutory order of preference. The court a quo is ordered to issue letters of administration to the widow appellant.