Gabriel vs. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 413 , G.R. No.

101512 August 07, 1992

FACTS:
Nine months after the death of Domingo Gabriel on Aug. 6, 1987, Roberto Dindo
Gabriel, an illegitimate son, filed with the RTC of Manila a petition for letters of
administration over Domingo’s estate. A hearing has been set for opposition and
publication of the order in a newspaper of general circulation. However, no opposition
has been filed. Thereafter, the probate court issued an order appointing Roberto as
administrator of the intestate estate of Domingo. Subsequently, a notice to creditors for
the filing of claims against the estate of the decedent was published. Aida Valencia,
mother of Roberto, filed a motion to file a claim against Domingo’s estate 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. Later, Roberto filed for the approval by the
probate court an inventory and appraisal of the estate. Nilda Gabriel and others, the
legitimate children of the decedent, filed an opposition praying for the recall of the letters
of administration issued to Rodrigo. They alleged that they were not duly informed by
personal notice of the petition, that Felicitas Jose-Gabriel, as the legitimate spouse-
widow, should be preferred over Roberto as administrator, and that Roberto has a
conflicting and/or adverse interest against the estate because he might prefer the claims
of his mother. The probate court denied the opposition on the ground that they had not
shown any circumstances sufficient to overturn the order. On appeal, the CA ruled in
favour of Roberto on the ground that the appointment of an administrator is left entirely
to the sound discretion of the trial court which may not be interfered with unless abused.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: W/N the order of preference in the issuance of letters of administration must be
followed; W/N the appointment of Roberto as administrator be nullified.

HELD: CA decision affirmed w/ modification. The appointment of Roberto as

administrator is valid; Felicitas Jose-Gabriel be appointed as co-administratrix.

Under the Sec.6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, the order of preference in the issuance
of letters of administration categorically seeks out the surviving spouse, the next of kin
and the creditors, and requires that the sequence be observed in appointing an
administrator. In the appointment thereof, the principal consideration reckoned with is
the interest in said estate of the one to be appointed as administrator.

The widow has the preference to administer the estate of her husband upon the latter’s
death, because she is supposed to have an interest therein as a partner in the conjugal
partnership. On this ground alone, Felicitas, the widow of the deceased, has every right
and is very much entitled to the administration of the estate of her husband since one
who has greater interest in the estate is preferred to another who has less.

On the other hand, we feel that we should not nullify the appointment of Roberto as
administrator. The determination of a person’s suitability for the office of judicial
administrator rests, to a great extent, in the sound judgment of the court exercising the
power of appointment and said judgment is not to be interfered with on appeal unless
the said court is clearly in error. In the instant case, 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 Rodrigo.
Under the circumstances obtaining therein, we deem it just, equitable and advisable that
there be a co-administration of the estate of the deceased by Felicitas and Roberto. The
purpose of having co-administrators is to have the benefit of their judgment and perhaps
at all times 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.