GR L 2211; (December, 1948) (Digest)

G.R. No. L-2211. December 20, 1948.

NATIVIDAD I. VDA. DE ROXAS, petitioner, vs. POTENCIANO PECSON, Judge of First Instance of Bulacan, MARIA ROXAS and PEDRO ROXAS, respondents.

FACTS

Pablo M. Roxas died. His siblings, Maria and Pedro Roxas, filed a petition for administration of his estate. His widow, Natividad Vda. de Roxas, later filed a petition for probate of an alleged will, wherein she was designated executrix and was bequeathed one-half of the estate, with the other half going to an adulterous child. The intestate proceeding was dismissed. The will was opposed by the siblings. The court denied probate of the will (a decision on appeal), but during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent judge issued an order appointing Natividad as special administratrix of the conjugal properties and Maria Roxas as special administratrix of the exclusive properties of the deceased.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted in excess of jurisdiction in appointing two separate special administratrices for different classes of property (conjugal and exclusive) of a single decedent’s estate.

RULING

Yes. The court acted in excess of jurisdiction. Under the Rules of Court, the estate of a deceased spouse to be settled includes both the exclusive properties and the conjugal partnership assets (after liquidation). Only one administrator, whether general or special, may be appointed for the entire estate of a decedent. A special administrator is a temporary administrator who acts in lieu of the general administrator for the whole estate. Appointing separate administrators for different property classes is unauthorized and would lead to impractical complications in administration and litigation. The challenged order is set aside.

AI Generated by Armztrong.