G.R. No. 101512 August 7, 1992
NILDA GABRIEL, EVA GABRIEL, EDGAR GABRIEL, GEORGE GABRIEL, ROSEMARIE GABRIEL, MARIBEL GABRIEL, CYNTHIA GABRIEL, RENATO GABRIEL, GERARDO GABRIEL, JOJI ZORAYDA GABRIEL, DANIEL GABRIEL and FELICITAS JOSE-GABRIEL, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MANUEL E. YUZON, Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XI, and ROBERTO DINDO GABRIEL, respondents.

FACTS

On May 12, 1988, private respondent Roberto Dindo Gabriel, alleging to be a son of the decedent Domingo Gabriel (who died on August 6, 1987), filed a petition for letters of administration. The probate court set the hearing and ordered publication of the notice. No opposition was filed, and after an ex parte presentation of evidence, the court appointed Roberto Dindo Gabriel as administrator on July 8, 1988. Subsequently, petitioners (including Nilda Gabriel, claiming to be a legitimate daughter, and Felicitas Jose-Gabriel, the widow) filed an opposition and motion to recall the letters of administration, arguing that they were not personally notified, that Nilda Gabriel as a legitimate daughter should be preferred, that the administrator had a conflicting interest due to his mother’s claim against the estate, and that many properties had already been transferred to petitioners. The probate court denied the opposition on September 21, 1989, and a motion for reconsideration was denied on December 22, 1989. Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition. Petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court, primarily arguing that the order of preference under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court was violated, as the widow (Felicitas Jose-Gabriel) and the legitimate child (Nilda Gabriel) should be preferred over the illegitimate son (Roberto Dindo Gabriel).

ISSUE

Whether the probate court and the Court of Appeals committed a grave abuse of discretion in appointing and sustaining the appointment of private respondent Roberto Dindo Gabriel as administrator, in alleged violation of the order of preference under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that the order of preference in Section 6, Rule 78 is not absolute but is a directive that should not be imperiously set aside without valid reason. The principal consideration in appointing an administrator is the interest in the estate. The widow, Felicitas Jose-Gabriel, has a right to administer the estate as she has an interest as a partner in the conjugal partnership and a right of succession. Her failure to apply within thirty days after the decedent’s death is not, by itself, sufficient to exclude her; a very strong case is needed to justify such exclusion. The Court found that the probate court did not abuse its discretion in appointing Roberto Dindo Gabriel, as petitioners did not apply for administration promptly and there was no proof of his incompetence. However, to harmonize the interests of the legitimate and illegitimate heirs, the Supreme Court ordered the appointment of Felicitas Jose-Gabriel as co-administratrix with Roberto Dindo Gabriel. The validity of Roberto Dindo Gabriel’s appointment was affirmed, but the case was remanded for his co-administration with the widow.