SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS – JUSTICE EDGARDO M.
CALDONA
Batungbacal • Biliran • Cadiente • Gaba • Gallardo • Gesta • Mangaser • Pintor • Sunga • Toledo
APPOINTMENT OF CO-ADMISTRATOR
GABRIEL v. COURT OF APPEALS
[GR. No. 101512; August 7, 1992]
“Widow and illegitimate son fighting over who should be the
administrator. In the end, both of them were appointed”
Facts:
 9 months after Domingo Gabriel died, his son Roberto Gabriel filed with
the RTC of Manila a petition for letters of administration
o The court directed the publication of the order in the newspaper
"Mabuhay," once a week for 3 consecutive weeks
o No opposition having been filed, Roberto was allowed to
present his evidence ex parte. Thereafter, the probate court
issued an order appointing Roberto as administrator
 Subsequently, a notice to creditors for the filing of claims against the
estate was published in the "Metropolitan News."
o Aida Valencia, mother of Roberto, filed a claim alleging that the
decision in a civil case between her and the deceased remained
unsatisfied and that she thereby had an interest in said estate
o The oppositors herein, including the widow of the deceased,
filed an opposition claiming that (I) they were not duly informed
by personal notice of the petition for administration; (2) Nilda
Gabriel, as the legitimate daughter, should be preferred over
Roberto Gabriel; (3) Roberto Gabriel has a conflicting and/or
adverse interest against the estate because he might prefer the
claims of his mother and (4) most of the properties of the
decedent have already been relinquished by way of transfer of
ownership to the oppositors herein and should not be included
in the value of the estate sought to be administered by private
respondent.
 The probate court denied the opposition since no proof was adduced to
show that Roberto Gabriel is unworthy, incapacitated or unsuitable to
perform the trust
o The oppositors filed a certiorari before the CA claiming that the
order of preference stated in the Rules of Court provides that
the surviving spouse, who in this case is Felicitas Jose-Gabriel,
is first in the order of preference for the appointment of an
administrator
o Also, as between a legitimate and an illegitimate child, the
former is preferred, hence Nilda Gabriel, as the legitimate
daughter, must be preferred over Roberto Gabriel, who is an
illegitimate son
o Roberto Gabriel contends that the preference in the Rules of
Court may be disregarded by the court where said persons
neglect to apply for letters of administration for 30 days after the
decedent's death. In this case, the oppositors failed to do so.
Issue/s:
1. WON the preference in the Rules of Court may be disregarded by the
court to exclude the widow from the administration of the estate of her
husband- NO
2. WON there is sufficient ground to revoke the appointment of Roberto as
an administrator – NO
3. WON both the widow and the illegitimate son should be appointed as a
co-administrator -- YES
Held/Ratio: Petition GRANTED. Both the widow, Felicitas Jose-Gabriel, and
the illegitimate son, Roberto Gabriel, must be appointed as co-administrators
1) NO. While it is true that Section 6(b) of Rule 78 provides that the
preference may be disregarded by the court where said persons neglect
to apply for letters of administration for 30 days after the decedent's
death, such failure is not sufficient to exclude the widow from the
administration of the estate of her husband. There must be a very strong
case to justify the exclusion of the widow from the administration
 In the case at bar, there is no such compelling reason
 Just as the order of preference is not absolute and may be
disregarded for valid cause, so may the 30-day period be
likewise waived since the rule merely provides that said letters,
as an alternative, "may be granted to one or more of the
principal creditors”.
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS – JUSTICE EDGARDO M. CALDONA
Batungbacal • Biliran • Cadiente • Gaba • Gallardo • Gesta • Mangaser • Pintor • Sunga • Toledo

2) NO. Administrators can only be removed for just cause

 Section 2 of Rule 82 provides the legal and specific causes
authorizing the probate court to remove an administrator
 A mere importunity by some of the heirs of the deceased, there
being no factual and substantial bases therefor, is not adequate
ratiocination for the removal of private respondent.
3) YES. It is equitable and advisable that there be a co-administration of
the estate in this case.
 The purpose of having co-administrators is to have the benefit
of their judgment and perhaps at all times to have different
interests represented, especially considering that in this
proceeding they will respectively represent the legitimate and
illegitimate groups of heirs to the estate
 Thereby, it may reasonably be expected that all interested
persons will be satisfied, with the representatives working in
harmony under the direction and supervision of the probate
court
 The appointment of co-administrators has been upheld for
various reasons, viz: (1) to have the benefit of their judgment
and perhaps at all times to have different interests represented;
(2) where justice and equity demand that opposing parties or
factions be represented in the management of the estate of the
deceased; (3) where the estate is large or, from any cause, an
intricate and perplexing one to settle; (4) to have all interested
persons satisfied and the representatives to work in harmony for
the best interests of the estate; and (5) when a person entitled
to the administration of an estate desires to have another
competent person associated with him in the office