EN BANC proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife" (See Arts.

160 and 185, Civil Code of the Philippines.)

[G.R. No. L-9282. May 31, 1956.] ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari with preliminary
injunction.
EMILIO ADVINCULA, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JUDGE JOSE TEODORO, The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
SR., Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, and ENRIQUE Jose Y. Torres for petitioner.
A. LACSON, Respondents. G. D. Demaisip and C. A. Dabalits for respondents. Advincula vs. Teodoro,
Sr. etc. and Lacson, 99 Phil. 413, No. L-9282 May 31, 1956

1.EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR; EXECUTOR NAMED IN THE WlLL

WHEN MAY HE BE APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR.—The provision of section CONCEPCION, J.:
4 of Rule 70 of the Kules of Court which provides that "when a will has
been proved and allowed, the Court shall issue letters testamentary Petitioner Emilio Advincula seeks a writ of certiorari, to annul certain
thereoft to the person named as executor therein, if he is competent, orders of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental.
accepts the trusts, and gives bond as required by these rules, cannot be
enforced, until after said document has been allowed to probate. Said Petitioner was, on November 22, 1954, appointed, special
2.ID.; DISCOVERY OF WILL AFTER APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR administrator of the estate of his deceased wife, Josefa Lacson Advincula,
EFFECT OF.—The discovery of a doeument purporting to be the last will in special proceeding No. 3245 of said court. In due course, he was, on
and testament of a deceased, after the appointment of an administrator of February 12, 1955, appointed regular administrator of said estate. After
the estate of the latter upon the assumption that he or she had died Advincula had qualified as such, the brothers of the deceased, who left no
intestate, does not ipso facto nullify the letters of administration already issue, submitted to the court, for allowance, a document purporting to be
issued or even authorize the revocation thereof until the alleged will has her last will and testament. Petitioner opposed the probate thereof upon
been proved and allowed by the court." (Rule 83, section 1 of the Rules of the ground that it did not bear the signature of the deceased; chan
Court.) roblesvirtualawlibrarythat the signature thereon, if hers, was secured
3.ID.; APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR; SURVIVING SPOUSE NOT through fraud and duress; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand that, the
STRANGER TO THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED.—It is untenable from the instrument had not been executed with the requisite formalities. On May
viewpoint of logic and experience, because a stranger to deceased may be 4, 1955, Respondent Enrique Lacson, one of the brothers of the deceased,
competent, capable, and fit to administer his estate in much the same as a filed a motion praying that he be appointed administrator of said estate, in
member of her immediate family could be incompetent, incapable and lieu of Petitioner herein, for the reason that said Respondent is the
unfit to do so. At any rate A is not a stranger either to her or to her estate, executor named in the aforementioned alleged will. On or about May 16,
he being her surviving spouse and as such, one of her forced heirs, (Arts. 1955, Attys. Jose Y. Torres and Antonio Lozada, as counsel for Advincula,
887, 888, 892, 893, 894, 897 to 900 and 995 to 1001, Civil Code of the filed an opposition to said motion. When the latter was called for hearing
Philippines), whether she died testate or intestate. What is more he is on May 18, 1955, Atty. Lozada was served, in open court, copy of an
prima facie entitled to one-half of all property subject to the authority of amended motion, of Respondent Lacson, for change of administrator,
the administrator of said estate, apart from his share of the other half dated May 14, 1955. It was alleged therein, in addition to the ground set
thereof, as heir of the deceased, for "all property of the marriage is forth in the first motion:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership"—of which he is its
administrator (Article 165, Civil Code of the Philippines)—"unless it be

Page 1 of 3
“5. That the present administrator is incompetent, incapable and his aforesaid orders of May 18 and 30, 1955, upon the ground that the
unsuitable to the discharge of the trust, he being foreign to the estate, and same were issued with grave abuse of discretion. Upon the filing of a bond
without changing or removing him as such would be disastrous to the by Advincula, we issued, as prayed for in his petition, a writ of preliminary
estate and to the heirs named in the will of the decedent.” injunction restraining Respondent Lacson and his agents from interfering,
molesting and harassing the Petitioner in the administration of the estate
Atty. Lozada asked a postponement of the hearing upon the ground that of the deceased, during the pendency of this case.
Advincula’s main counsel, Atty. Torres, was in Manila, but his request was
denied. Then, after hearing the argument of opposing counsel, the court, The writ of certiorari prayed for is in order. Lacson’s appointment, in lieu of
presided over by Respondent, Honorable Jose Teodoro, Sr., Judge, issued, Advincula, as administrator of the estate of Josefa Lacson Advincula, is
on the same date (May 18, 1955), an order the pertinent parts of which predicated upon the fact that the former is named executor in the alleged
read:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary will of said deceased. The provision therein to this effect cannot be
enforced, however, until after said document has been allowed to probate,
“The Court, after hearing the oral arguments of both parties, finds the for section 4 of Rule 79 of the Rules of Court
motion for postponement not well-taken and hereby denies the same; provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand finding the motion dated May 4, 1955 as
amended by the amended motion dated May 14, 1955, well-founded and “When a will has been proved and allowed, the court shall issue letters
the opposition thereto dated May 16, 1955 not well-founded, said motion testamentary thereon to the person named as executor therein, if he is
is hereby granted. competent, accepts the trusts, and gives bond as required by these rules.”
(Italics supplied.)
“WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice and for the preservation of the
property for the heirs, the appointment of Emilio Advincula as Besides, the discovery of a document purporting to be the last will and
administrator is hereby revoked and in his stead, the Oppositor, Enrique A. testament of a deceased, after the appointment of an administrator of the
Lacson, is hereby appointed administrator of this intestate estate, and estate of the latter, upon the assumption that he or she had died intestate,
same may qualify by filing a bond in the sum of P5,000 and taking and does not ipso facto nullify the letters of administration already issued or
subscribing the corresponding oath of Office. Once said Enrique A. Lacson even authorize the revocation thereof, until the alleged will has been
has qualified, let letters of administration issue in his favor. “proved and allowed by the court.” Rule 83, section 1, of the Rules of
Court, is plain and explicit on this point.
“The former administrator, Emilio Advincula, is hereby ordered to submit
within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, his final account covering the “If after letters of administration have been granted on the estate of a
entire period of his administration and should it appear that any deficiency decedent as if he had died intestate, his will is proved and allowed by the
has been incurred by him during his incumbency, his bond shall answer for court, the letters of administration shall be revoked and all powers
said deficiency.” thereunder cease, and the administrator shall forthwith surrender the
letters to the court, end render his account within such time as the court
Thereupon, Lacson gave the requisite bond, letters of administration was directs. Proceedings for the issuance of letters testamentary or of
issued to him, and he tried to take possession of the estate of the administration under the will shall be as hereinbefore provided.” (Italics
deceased. A reconsideration of said order of May 18, 1955, having been supplied.)
denied by another order, dated May 30, 1955, Petitioner instituted the
present action for certiorari, against Lacson and Judge Teodoro, to annul

Page 2 of 3
The amended motion for change of administrator endeavored to justify
the removal of Advincula by alleging that he is “incompetent, incapable
and unsuitable to the discharge of the trust, he being foreign to the estate”
of the deceased. By holding, in its order of May 18, 1955, that said motion
is “well-founded” — with nothing, absolutely nothing else, to indicate the
basis of this conclusion — Respondent Judge has impliedly adopted the
line of argument followed in the above quoted allegation of the amended
motion to change administrator. Said argument is, however, devoid of
merit.

It is untenable from the viewpoint of logic and experience, because a

stranger to deceased may be competent, capable and fit to administer her
estate, in much the same as a member of her immediate family could be
incompetent, incapable and unfit to do so. At any rate, Advincula is not a
stranger, either to her or to her estate, he bring her surviving spouse and,
as such, one of her forced heirs (Arts. 887, 888, 892, 893, 894, 897 to 900,
and 995 to 1001, Civil Code of the Philippines), whether she died testate or
intestate. What is more, he is prima facie entitled to one-half of all
property subject to the authority of the administrator of said estate, apart
from his share of the other half thereof, as heir of the deceased, for “all
property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal
partnership” — of which he is its administrator (Article 165, Civil Code of
the Philippines) — “unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the
husband or to the wife” (See Articles 160 and 185, Civil Code of the
Philippines). Lastly, Advincula has not been found guilty of any specific act
or omission constituting one of the legal grounds, enumerated in Rule 83,
section 2, of the Rules of Court, for the removal of an executor or
administrator. Hence, it is clear that Respondent Judge exceeded his
jurisdiction in removing Advincula and appointing Lacson as administrator
of the estate of the deceased Josefa Lacson Advincula.

Wherefore, the aforementioned orders of Respondent Judge, dated May 8

and 30, 1955, are reversed, and the writ of preliminary injunction issued in
this case hereby made permanent, with costs against Respondent Enrique
A. Lacson. It is SO ORDERED.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo,
Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.

Page 3 of 3