G.R. No. L-6108 May 25, 1953
FRANCISCO DE BORJA, CRISANTO DE BORJA, and MATILDE DE BORJA, petitioners, vs. BIENVENIDO TAN, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and JOSE DE BORJA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Francisco de Borja is the duly appointed executor of the will of his deceased spouse Josefa Tangco. His co-petitioners and respondent Jose de Borja are his children. Due to Francisco’s advanced age and physical incapacity (being bed-ridden and unable to manage his affairs), the court, acting on a letter from heir Matilde de Borja and a medical certificate, initially appointed Crisanto de Borja as co-administrator on August 25, 1951. Later, all heirs, including Crisanto, filed an ex parte petition to set aside this appointment, but the court took no action. On March 21, 1952, Francisco submitted an amended account and suggested Crisanto be appointed administrator if needed. Instead, without prior notice, the court appointed respondent Jose de Borja as co-administrator on April 9, 1952, directing him to examine the accounts. Francisco and the other heirs filed motions for reconsideration, opposing the appointment for disregarding the will’s provision naming Crisanto as substitute executor, lack of notice, and Jose’s alleged adverse interest. The court denied the motions, citing the executor’s physical inability, the failure of Francisco and Crisanto to render a complete account or produce supporting vouchers, and the need to properly act on the amended accounts. The court also revoked Crisanto’s prior appointment. Subsequent motions, including one to prohibit Jose from acting pending appeal, were denied. Petitioners then filed this certiorari proceeding, challenging the orders appointing Jose, revoking Crisanto’s appointment, and related implementing orders as in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in: (1) appointing Jose de Borja as co-administrator without prior notice and hearing; (2) revoking the appointment of Crisanto de Borja as co-administrator; and (3) issuing related implementing orders.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and dissolved the preliminary injunction.
1. The appointment of Jose de Borja as co-administrator, though made without prior notice or hearing, was valid. The procedural defect was cured when the interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard through their motions for reconsideration, which the court duly considered and overruled. The law prohibits the absolute absence of notice and opportunity to be heard, which was not the case here. The court’s haste was justified by its desire to promptly act on the amended accounts and expedite the administration, given the executor’s proven physical inability to manage the large estate and the administration’s handling by others over whom the court had no control. The choice of administrator is within the court’s discretion, and no abuse was found in selecting Jose from among the heirs.
2. The revocation of Crisanto de Borja’s appointment was within jurisdiction. Sufficient cause existed for his removal, independent of the heirs’ earlier unacted-upon petition, namely his failure to produce vouchers and receipts supporting expenses and his unsatisfactory excuse that they were lost.
3. The related implementing orders were also sustained as necessary to effectuate the valid appointment of Jose de Borja as co-administrator. The court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Jose to immediately assume his position without waiting for the perfection of any appeal, as the appeals had not been perfected (lacking notice of appeal and appeal bond), and the circumstances necessitated prompt action to ensure proper estate management.