Scribd
Upload
94 views2 pages

Tan Vs Gedorio: Digest by Virgilio, Mark

1) The case involved a dispute over the appointment of a special administrator for the estate of Gerardo Tan following his death in 2000. Private respondents, claiming to be Tan's children, sought the appointment of Romualdo Lim as special administrator, which was opposed by petitioners who were Tan's legitimate children. 2) The court initially appointed Vilma Tan as special administratrix. However, she failed to comply with court directives to account for estate income, prompting the appointment of Romualdo Lim instead. 3) The Supreme Court upheld Lim's appointment, finding that the preference for next of kin in appointing a regular administrator does not apply to special administrators, whose appointment is at

Uploaded by

Mark Joseph Virgilio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
94 views2 pages

Tan Vs Gedorio: Digest by Virgilio, Mark

1) The case involved a dispute over the appointment of a special administrator for the estate of Gerardo Tan following his death in 2000. Private respondents, claiming to be Tan's children, sought the appointment of Romualdo Lim as special administrator, which was opposed by petitioners who were Tan's legitimate children. 2) The court initially appointed Vilma Tan as special administratrix. However, she failed to comply with court directives to account for estate income, prompting the appointment of Romualdo Lim instead. 3) The Supreme Court upheld Lim's appointment, finding that the preference for next of kin in appointing a regular administrator does not apply to special administrators, whose appointment is at

Uploaded by

Mark Joseph Virgilio
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Tan vs Gedorio

Digest by Virgilio, Mark

Doctrine: The appointment of a special administrator is justified only when there is delay in
granting letters, testamentary (in case the decedent leaves behind a will) or administrative (in the
event that the decedent leaves behind no will, as in the Petition at bar) occasioned by any cause.18
The principal object of the appointment of a temporary administrator is to preserve the estate until
it can pass into the hands of a person fully authorized to administer it for the benefit of creditors
and heirs.

Facts: Upon the death of Gerardo Tan on Oct. 14, 2000, private respondents Rogelo Lim Suga and Helen
Tan Racoma, who were claiming to be the children of the decedent moved for the appointment of their
attorney-in-fact, Romualdo Lim as special administrator. This was opposed by the petitioner Vilma Tan,
Jake Tan and Geraldine Tan, claiming that none of the respondents can be appointed since they are not
residing in the country, that Romualdo does not have the same competence as Vilma Tan who was
already acting as the de facto administratrix of the estate, and that the nearest of kin, being the legitimate
children, is preferred in the choice of administrator (claiming that the respondent were illegitmate
children).

However, upon failure of Vilma to follow a court directive to account for the income of the estate, the
court granted Romualdo's appointment as special administrator.

Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals and was denied, hence the petition for review on certiorari.

Issue: Whether or not the appointment of the special administrator is justified.

Ruling: Yes. The preference under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court for the next of kin refers to
the appointment of a regular administrator, and not of a special administrator, as the appointment of the
latter lies entirely in the discretion of the court, and is not appealable.

If petitioners really desire to avail themselves of the order of preference, they should pursue the
appointment of a regular administrator and put to an end the delay which necessitated the appointment of
a special administrator.

The appointment of a special administrator is justified only when there is delay in granting letters,
testamentary (in case the decedent leaves behind a will) or administrative (in the event that the
decedent leaves behind no will, as in the Petition at bar) occasioned by any cause.

Section 1, Rule 80 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Appointment of special administrator.—When there is delay in granting letters testamentary


or of administration by any cause including an appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a will,
the court may appoint a special administrator to take possession and charge of the estate of the
deceased until the questions causing the delay are decided and executors or administrators appointed.

The principal object of the appointment of a temporary administrator is to preserve the estate until
it can pass into the hands of a person fully authorized to administer it for the benefit of creditors
and heirs.

In the case at bar, private respondents were constrained to move for the appointment of a special
administrator due to the delay caused by the failure of petitioner Vilma to comply with the directives of
the court-appointed commissioner. It would certainly be unjust if petitioner Vilma were still appointed
special administratix, when the necessity of appointing one has been brought about by her defiance of the
lawful orders of the RTC or its appointed officials. Petitioners submit the defense that petitioner Vilma
was unable to comply with the directives of the RTC to deposit with the court the income of Gerardo’s
estate and to provide an accounting thereof because of the fact that Gerardo’s estate had no income. This
defense is clearly specious and insufficient justification for petitioner Vilma’s non-compliance. If the
estate truly did not have any income, petitioners should have simply filed a manifestation to that effect,
instead of continuing to disregard the court’s orders.

WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated 29 July
2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 79335 affirming the Order dated 17 July 2003 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ormoc City, in SP. PROC. No. 4014-0 denying reconsideration of its
Order dated 12 June 2003, whereby it appointed Romualdo D. Lim as special administrator of the estate
of Gerardo Tan, is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy