G.R. No. 27871 , July 21, 1928
TIRSO DACANAY, administrator-appellee, vs. SILVERIO HERNANDEZ, in his own behalf and as guardian of the minor Maria Hernandez, EDUVIGIS HERNANDEZ, and CARIDAD HERNANDEZ, oppositors-appellants.

FACTS

Justiniano Rogero Dacanay died in 1905, leaving a will that heavily favored his three acknowledged natural children (Herminigilda, Tirso, and Paulina) over his only legitimate child, Bienvenida Julia Dacanay. The will was probated in 1906, and Tirso Dacanay was appointed administrator. The estate’s settlement was protracted over two decades. A key issue was the proper partition of the estate, considering the legitimate share of Bienvenida (who died in 1907, survived by her husband Silverio Hernandez and their children) versus the shares of the natural children under the Civil Code. Multiple partition plans and court decisions were rendered, including a 1916 decision by Judge Camus that ordered a fair distribution. That decision was set aside by the Supreme Court to allow new evidence (a dowry inventory). In 1919, Judge Burgett found the inventory genuine and ordered a new partition. The case returned to the trial court, where the parties entered into a stipulation in 1921 agreeing to a specific plan of partition. However, the administrator, Tirso Dacanay, failed to comply with the stipulation and continued to delay the final settlement. The lower court eventually approved Dacanay’s accounts and a partition plan largely favoring him. Silverio Hernandez, representing Bienvenida’s heirs, appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lower court erred in approving the administrator’s accounts and the proposed partition of the estate, which allegedly did not conform to the law and the parties’ stipulation.
2. Whether the administrator, Tirso Dacanay, should be removed for mismanagement and failure to comply with court orders and the stipulation.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the lower court’s decision.
1. On the Partition: The Court found that the partition approved by the lower court deviated from the parties’ 1921 stipulation, which was binding. The stipulation provided a clear basis for distribution, and the lower court should have enforced it. The Court proceeded to outline the correct distribution based on the stipulation and the evidence, significantly adjusting the shares. It held that the legitimate heirs of Bienvenida (her children) were entitled to two-thirds of the net hereditary estate, while the two surviving natural children (Tirso and Paulina) were each entitled to one-ninth. The estate of the deceased natural child, Herminigilda, was also entitled to one-ninth, to be divided among her heirs.
2. On the Administrator’s Removal and Accounts: The Court ordered the immediate removal of Tirso Dacanay as administrator for his protracted delay, failure to comply with the stipulation, and mismanagement of the estate. He was ordered to render a strict account for the period after October 31, 1925, and to deliver all estate property to his successor. He was denied any compensation for his personal services or attorney’s fees. The Court also found him indebted to the estate for certain unaccounted properties and cash, which he was ordered to pay.
3. Final Orders: The case was remanded with instructions to: (a) appoint a new administrator; (b) require Tirso Dacanay to account and deliver estate assets; (c) effect the partition in accordance with the Court’s outlined plan, including the collection of debts owed by Dacanay to the estate; and (d) ensure Dacanay pays a specific sum representing his indebtedness to the estate for a later period, which sum should also be distributed among the heirs according to their determined shares. The administrator’s accounts up to October 31, 1925, were approved subject to the noted disallowances.