GR L 9271; (March, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9271; March 29, 1957
In the matter of the testate estate of the late Da. Margarita David. Carlos Moran Sison, Judicial Administrator, petitioner-appellant, vs. Narcisa F. Teodoro, heiress, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
On December 20, 1948, the Court of First Instance of Manila appointed Carlos Moran Sison as the judicial administrator of the estate of the late Margarita David, without compensation, upon posting a bond of P5,000. He took his oath, posted the bond, and received his letters of administration the following day. On January 19, 1955, the judicial administrator filed an accounting that included disbursements for renewal premiums paid on his administrator’s bond. Narcisa F. Teodoro, an heir, objected to these items, arguing they were not necessary expenses of administration and should not be charged against the estate. The court approved the accounting but disallowed the bond premium items, ruling they could not be considered administration expenses. The administrator’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
The sole issue is whether a judicial administrator, serving without compensation, is entitled to charge the premiums paid on his bond as an expense of administration.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s orders disallowing the bond premiums as a charge against the estate. The Court ruled that the expense incurred by an executor or administrator to procure or maintain a bond is not a proper administration expense. This ruling applies regardless of whether the administrator serves with or without compensation. The position is one of trust, and the requirement to post a bond is a qualification for the office and a condition precedent to assuming the duties. The ability to provide the bond is part of this qualification. The expenses for the bond are incurred before or as a condition to entering upon the performance of duties, not as part of the care, management, and settlement of the estate. The Court cited its precedent in Sulit vs. Santos, 56 Phil. 626, which held that such bond expenses are not authorized to be charged against the estate under the relevant procedural provisions. The fact that the administrator in this case served without compensation does not alter the principle; having waived compensation, he cannot now claim the expenses incident to his qualification.