G.R. No. 74769 September 28, 1990
BEATRIZ F. GONZALES, petitioner, vs. HON. ZOILO AGUINALDO, Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 143, Makati, Metro Manila and TERESA F. OLBES, respondents.

FACTS

This is a petition for certiorari seeking to annul the Orders of the respondent Judge cancelling the appointment of petitioner Beatriz F. Gonzales as a co-administratrix of the intestate estate of Ramona Gonzales Vda. de Favis. The deceased is survived by four children: Asterio Favis, Beatriz F. Gonzales, Teresa F. Olbes, and Cecilia Favis-Gomez. On October 25, 1983, the probate court appointed petitioner and private respondent Teresa Olbes as co-administratrices.
While petitioner was in the United States attending to her ailing husband in late 1984, private respondent filed a motion for her removal, alleging incapacity and acts detrimental to the estate. The motion was served upon petitioner’s counsel of record, who was, unbeknownst to the parties, under suspension from the practice of law. The court issued an order requiring opposition. Only one heir, Asterio Favis, opposed the removal, as petitioner was abroad.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in removing petitioner Beatriz F. Gonzales as co-administratrix.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found grave abuse of discretion and reversed the orders of removal. The legal logic centers on the grounds for removal under Section 2, Rule 82 of the Rules of Court, which are exclusive. Valid grounds include neglect to render an account, failure to perform a court order, absconding, insanity, or being otherwise incapable or unsuitable to discharge the trust.
The Court held that the respondent Judge’s cited reasons—specifically, the conflict between the co-administratrices and petitioner’s temporary absence abroad—did not constitute a valid statutory ground for removal. Disagreement between co-administrators is not equivalent to incapacity or unsuitability; in fact, appointing multiple administrators is sometimes done precisely to represent differing interests within an estate. Furthermore, a temporary absence, explained by a family emergency, does not amount to abandonment or neglect of duty. The probate court’s discretion in removing an administrator is not absolute and must be based on the grounds provided by law. Since no evidence was presented to establish any statutory ground, the removal was arbitrary and constituted a grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner was ordered reinstated as co-administratrix.