Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No.

L-29276 May 18, 1978 Testate Estate of the Late Fe !" #. $e G%&'a(. )*CTOR*NO G. +E GU,M-N, administratorappellee, s! CR*SP*N- +E GU,M-N-C-R*LLO, -RSEN*O +E GU,M-N a($ .ONOR-T- +E GU,M-NMEN+*OL-,oppositors-appellants! Emiliano Samson & R. Balderama-Samson for appellants. Cezar Paralejo for appellee.

-/U*NO, J.: "his case is about the propriet# of allo$in% as administration e&penses certain disbursements made b# the administrator of the testate estate of the late 'eli& (! de )u*man of )apan, Nue a Eci+a! "he deceased testator $as sur i ed b# ei%ht children named Victorino, ,ibrada, Se erino, Mar%arita, (osefina, -onorata, .rsenio and Crispina! -is $ill $as dul# probated! ,etters of administration $ere issued to his son, Doctor Victorino )! de )u*man, pursuant to the order dated September /0, /123 of the Court of 'irst Instance of Nue a Eci+a in Special Proceedin% No! /34/! One of the properties left b# the dent $as a residential house located in the poblacion! In conformit# $ith his last $ill, that house and the lot on $hich it stands $ere ad+udicated to his ei%ht children, each bein% %i en a one-ei%hthproindiviso share in the pro+ect of partition dated March /1, /122, $hich $as si%ned b# the ei%ht heirs and $hich $as appro ed in the lo$er court5s order of .pril /3, /120 but $ithout pre+udice to the final outcome of the accountin%! "he administrator submitted four accountin% reports for the period from (une /2, /123 to September, /120! "hree heirs Crispina de )u*mans-Carillo -onorata de )u*man-Mendiola and .rsenio de )u*man interposed ob+ections to the administrator5s disbursements in the total sum of P/4,2/6!37, bro8en do$n as follo$s9 I! E&pense for the impro ement and reno ation of the decedent5s residential house! /! Construction of fence : P4,67;!60 ;! Reno ation of bathroom : P/,471!<; 4! Repair of terrace and interior of house : P<,1;7!66 : P/6,411!<1

II! ,i in% e&penses of ,ibrada de )u*man $hile occup#in% the famil# home $ithout pa#in% rent9 /! 'or house helper : P/,/06!66 ;! ,i%ht bills : ;;0!3/ 4! =ater bills : /<6!76 3! )as oil, floor $a& and s$itch nail : <3!16 : P /,264!// III! Other e&penses9 /! ,a$#er5s subsistence : P /1!46 ;! )ratuit# pa# in lieu of medical fee : /33!66 4! 'or steno%raphic notes : /66!66 3! 'or food ser ed on decedent5s first death anni ersar# : /22!2< <! Cost of publication of death anni ersar# of decedent : /6;!66 2! Representation e&penses : ;2!;< : P<<7!;6 IV! Irri%ation fee P/!631!<7 "O"., P/4,2/6!37 It should be noted that the probate court in its order of .u%ust ;1, /122 directed the administrator >to refrain from spendin% the assets of the estate for reconstructin% and remodelin% the house of the deceased and to stop spendin% ?sic@ an# asset of the estate $ithout first durin% authorit# of the court to do so> ?pp! ;2-;0, Record on .ppeal@! "he lo$er court in its order of .pril ;1, /127 allo$ed the d items as le%itimate e&penses of administration! 'rom that order, the three oppositors appealed to this Court! "heir contention is that

the probate court erred in appro in% the utili*ation of the income of the estate ?from rice har ests@ to defra# those e&penditures $hich alle%edl# are not allo$able under the Rules of Court! .n e&ecutor or administrator is allo$ed the necessar# e&penses in the care, mana%ement, and settlement of the estate! -e is entitled to possess and mana%e the decedent5s real and personal estate as lon% as it is necessar# for the pa#ment of the debts and the e&penses of administration! -e is accountable for the $hole decedent5s estate $hich has come into his possession, $ith all the interest, profit, and income thereof, and $ith the proceeds of so much of such estate as is sold b# him, at the price at $hich it $as sold ?Sec! 4, Rule 73A Secs! / and 0, Rule 7<, Rules of Court@! One of the Conditions of the administrator5s bond is that he should render a true and +ust account of his administration to the court! "he court ma# e&amine him upon oath =ith respect to e er# matter relatin% to his accountin% 5t and shall so e&amine him as to the correctness of his account before the same is allo$ed, e&cept $hen no ob+ection is made to the allo$ance of the account and its correctness is satisfactoril# established b# competent proof! "he heirs, le%atees, distributes, and creditors of the estate shall ha e the same pri ile%e as the e&ecutor or administrator of bein% e&amined on oath on an# matter relatin% to an administration account!> ?Sec! /BcC Rule 7/ and secs! 7 and 1, Rule 7<, Rules of Court@! . hearin% is usuall# held before an administrator5s account is appro ed, especiall# if an interested Part# raises ob+ections to certain items in the accountin% report ?Sec! /6, Rule 7<@! .t that hearin%, the practice is for the administrator to ta8e the $itness stand, testif# under oath on his accounts and Identif# the receipts, ouchers and documents e idencin% his disbursements $hich are offered as e&hibits! -e ma# be interro%ated b# the court and crossed b# the oppositors5s counsel! "he oppositors ma# present proofs to rebut the ad! administrator5s e idence in support of his accounts! I! E&penses for the reno ation and impro ement of the famil# residence : P/6,411!<1! : .s alread# sho$n abo e, these e&penses consisted of disbursements for the repair of the terrace and interior of the famil# home, the reno ation of the bathroom, and the construction of a fence! "he probate court allo$ed those e&penses because an administrator has the dut# to >maintain in tenantable repair the houses and other structures and fences belon%in% to the estate, and deli er the same in such repair to the heirs or de ises> $hen directed to do so b# the court ?Sec! ;, Rule 73, Rules of Court@! On the other hand, the oppositors-appellants contend that the trial court erred in allo$in% those e&penses because the same did not come $ithin the cate%or# of necessar# e&penses of administration $hich are understood to be the reasonable and necessar# e&penses of carin% for the propert# and mana%in% it until the debts are paid and the estate is partitioned and distributed amon% the heirs ?,i*arra%a -ermanos s! .bada, 36 Phil! /;3@! .s clarified in the Lizarraga case, administration e&penses should be those $hich are necessar# for the mana%ement of the estate, for protectin% it a%ainst destruction or deterioration, and, possibl#, for the production of fruits! "he# are e&penses entailed for the preser ation and producti it# of the estate and its mana%ement for purposes of liDuidation, pa#ment of debts, and distribution of the residue amon% the persons entitled thereto! It should be noted that the famil# residence $as partitioned proindiviso amon% the decedent5s ei%ht children! Each one of them $as %i en a one-ei%hth share in conformit# $ith the testator5s $ill! 'i e of the ei%ht co-o$ners consented to the use of the funds of the estate for repair and impro ement of

the famil# home! It is ob ious that the e&penses in Duestion $ere incurred to preser e the famil# home and to maintain the famil#5s social standin% in the communit#! Ob iousl#, those e&penses redounded to the benefit of an the co- o$ners! "he# $ere necessar# for the preser ation and use of the famil# residence! .s a result of those e&penses, the co-o$ners, includin% the three oppositors, $ould be able to use the famil# home in comfort, con enience and securit#! =e hold that the probate court did not err in appro in% the use of the income of the estate to defra# those e& II! Expenses incurred ! Li rada de "uzman as occupant of t#e famil! residence $it#out pa!ing rent % P& '().&&: "he probate court allo$ed the income of the estate to be used for those e&penses on the theor# that the occupanc# of the house b# one heir did not depri e the other se en heirs from li in% in it! "hose e&penses consist of the salaries of the house helper, li%ht and $ater bills, and the cost of %as, oil floor $a& and s$itch nail =e are of the opinion that those e&penses $ere personal e&penses of ,ibrada de )u*man, inurin% # to her benefit! "hose e&penses, not bein% reasonable administration e&penses incurred b# the administrator, should not be char%ed a%ainst the income of the estate! ,ibrada de )u*man, as an heir, is entitled to share in the net income of the estate! She occupied the house $ithout pa#in% rent! She should use her income for her li in% e&penses $hile occup#in% the famil# residence! "he trial court erred in appro in% those e&penses in the administrator5s accounts! "he# should be, as the# are hereb#, disallo$ed ?See 44 C!(!S /;41-36@! III! *t#er expenses : P++,.-(! : .mon% these e&penses is the sum of P/66 for steno%raphic notes $hich, as admitted b# the administrator on pa%e ;3 of his brief, should be disallo$ed! .nother item, >representation e&penses> in the sum of P;2!;< ?;nd accountin%@, $as not e&plained! it should li8e$ise be disallo$ed! "he probate court erred in allo$in% as e&penses of ad! administration the sum of P;27!2< $hich $as incurred durin% the celebration of the first death anni ersar# of the deceased! "hose e&penses are disallo$ed because the# ha e no connection $ith the care, mana%ement and settlement of the decedent5s estate ?Nicolas s! Nicolas 24 Phil 44;@! "he other e&penses, namel#, P/1!46 for the la$#er5s subsistence and P/33 as the cost of the %ift to the ph#sician $ho attended to the testator durin% his last s are allo$able e&penses! IV! .rrigation fee : P&/(01.+,! :"he appellants Duestion the deductibilit# of that e&pense on the %round that it seems to be a duplication of the item of P/,4;6 as irri%ation fee for the same /122-20 crop-#ear! "he administrator in his comment filed on 'ebruar# ;7, /107 e&plained that the item of P/,4;6 represented the >allotments> for irri%ation fees to ei%ht tenants $ho culti ated the Intan crop, $hich allotments $ere treated as >assumed e&penses> deducted as farmin% e&penses from the alue of the net har ests!

"he e&planation is not Duite clear but it $as not disputed b# the appellants! "he fact is that the said sum of P/,631!<7 $as paid b# the administrator to the Penaranda Irri%ation S#stem as sho$n in Official Receipt No! 4<12407 dated .pril ;7, /120! It $as included in his accountin% as part of the farmin% e&penses! "he amount $as properl# allo$ed as a le%itimate e&pense of administration! =-ERE'ORE, the lo$er court5s order of .pril ;1, /127 is affirmed $ith the modifications that the sum of ?a@ P/,264!// as the li in% e&penses of ,ibrada de )u*man! ?b@ P/66 for steno%raphic notes, ?c@ P;2!;< as representation e&penses, and ?d@ P;27!2< as e&penses for the celebration of the first anni ersar# of the decedent5s death are disallo$ed in the administrator5s accounts! No costs! SO ORDERED!