G.R. No. L-5436 June 30, 1953
ROMAN OZAETA, ROSA GONZALES VDA. DE PALANCA, JUSTO G. PALANCA, LEONARDA PALANCA DE ARANAS, SEVERINA G. PALANCA, CARLOS PALANCA, JR., ANTONIO G. PALANCA, MACARIO G. PALANCA, MILAGROS PALANCA DE FURER, and RAMON G. PALANCA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE POTENCIANO PECSON, Judge of First Instance of Manila, and BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, respondents.

FACTS

Carlos Palanca died on September 2, 1950, leaving a will executed on May 19, 1945, which named petitioner Roman Ozaeta as executor if General Manuel A. Roxas failed to qualify. Upon Palanca’s death, and with General Roxas having predeceased him, Ozaeta petitioned for the probate of the will and prayed for his appointment as special administrator. Some heirs opposed. On October 6, 1950, the court appointed the Philippine Trust Company, a non-applicant and stranger to the proceedings, as special administrator. On April 20, 1951, the Philippine Trust Company petitioned to resign due to incompatibility of interest, having granted a loan to heir Angel Palanca, who pledged shares allegedly belonging to the estate. Ozaeta reiterated his petition, but the court appointed heir Sebastian Palanca instead on June 30, 1951. On October 23, 1951, the court admitted the will to probate and appointed Ozaeta as executor. However, on October 25, 1951, the court allowed the Philippine Trust Company to resign, reconsidered the appointment of Sebastian Palanca, and appointed the Bank of the Philippine Islands as special administrator. Ozaeta moved for reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this petition. The respondent judge held that he had discretion to appoint a special administrator other than the named executor because the order admitting the will to probate had been appealed.

ISSUE

Does a probate court commit an abuse of discretion if, pending an appeal against its order admitting a will to probate and appointing the named executor as judicial administrator, it appoints as special administrator any person other than the executor named in the will?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the writ, reversed the appealed order, and directed that temporary letters of administration be issued in favor of petitioner Roman Ozaeta during the pendency of the appeal. The Court held that while Rule 81 of the Rules of Court grants discretion to the probate court in appointing a special administrator, such discretion must be based on reason and legal principle, not exercised whimsically. The choice of executor is a precious prerogative of the testator, and the management of the estate by the administrator of his choice should commence as soon as practicable after the will is admitted to probate, absent reasonable objections. Since the will had already been admitted to probate and Ozaeta was expressly appointed as executor by the respondent judge, the only ground for suspending his appointment and appointing a different special administrator was the technicality of the pending appeal. The Court found it unreasonable to refuse Ozaeta’s appointment as special administrator, as doing so would delay the testator’s wishes and subject the estate to unnecessary expense, citing precedents from New York surrogate courts that favor appointing the named executor as temporary administrator during contested probates to respect the testator’s selection and ensure economical administration.