transaction involving it without prior
RULE 80-85
RELEVANT JURISPRUDENCE
ESTATE OF AMADEO OLAVE v. REYES
GR L-29407 July 29, 1983
Facts:
Carlos and Matias were the co-
administrators of the estate of
Amadeo Olave. SAMCO filed a
collection case against them in their
capacity as co-administrators and
the estate which eventually led to the
conveyance of more than 29
hectares of land belonging to the
estate to SAMCO as payment of the
debt by virtue of an Amicable
Settlement entered into without prior
authority of the probate court.
Issue:
Can co-administrators validly
enter into an Amicable Settlement
involving the property under
administration without the prior
authority of the probate court?
Held:
NO. The law is clear that where
the estate of the deceased person is
already the subject of a testate or
intestate proceeding, the
administrator cannot enter into any
approval of the probate court. The
Amicable Settlement, once
approved by another court, will
operate as a judgment that conveys
illegally and unfairly the property of
the estate without the requisite
approval of the probate court of
Manila which has the sole jurisdiction
to convey this property in custudio
legis of the estate.
MANANQUIL v. VILLEGAS
AM No. 2430 August 30, 1990
Facts:
Villegas is the counsel of record
of Felix Leong –the former
administrator of the Testate Estate of
Filomina Zerna. Mananquil was
appointed special administrator after
Felix Leond died. Mananquil charged
Villegas of misconduct for allowing his
client Leong to execute lease
contracts covering several parcels of
land of the estate with Hijos De Jose
Villegas for over 20 years without first
seeking the approval of the probate
court.
Issue:
Does the execution of lease
contracts by an administrator over
the real property of the estate
without prior approval of the probate
court constitute misconduct?
Held:
NO. Section 3 of Rule 84 of the
Rules of Court provides that a judicial
executor or administrator has the
right to the possession and
management of the real as well as
the personal property of the
deceased so long as it is necessary for
the payment of the debts and
expenses of administration. He may,
therefore, exercise acts of
administration over said property
without special authority from the
court having jurisdiction of the estate.
It has long been settled that the
administrator has the power to enter
into lease contracts involving
properties of the estate even without
prior judicial authority and approval.
Manungas v. Parreo
GR 193161 August 22, 2011
Facts:
Engracia was the administratrix
of her husband’s estate. She had the
property partitioned in 1980. Her
neice, Florencia, was appointed as
her Judicial Guardian in 1995 when
Engracia had been declared to be
an incompetent. Diosdado, an
illegitimate son of Engracia’s
husband, petitioned for the issuance
of letters of special administration
over the estate of Engracia when the
latter died in 1998. Florencia opposed
the motion stating that Diosdado was
incompetent to be the special
administrator of Engracia’s estate
because he was not an heir of the
deceased and that he was indebted
to the estate in the amount of
P177,000. Diosdado reasoned that he
is more qualified to be the special
administrator as the illegitimate son of
Engracia’s husband as compared to
Florencia who was a mere niece, a
collateral relative.
Issue:
Who is more qualified to be the
special administrator of Engracia’s
estate: Diosdado or Florencia?
Held:
FLORENCIA is more qualified to
be the administrator of Engracia’s
estate. The fact that Diosdado is an
heir to the estate of Engracia’s
husband does not mean that he is
entitled or even qualified to become
the administrator of Engracia’s
estate.
The selection and removal of
special administrators is not governed
by the rules regarding the selection
and removal of regular
administrators. The probate court
may appoint or remove special
administrators based on grounds
other than those enumerated in the
Rules of Court at its discretion.
However, even if the trial court has
the discretion to appoint anyone as a
special administrator, such discretion
must be exercised with reason,
guided by the directives of equity,
justice and legal principles.
Also, given the duty of the
special administrator to preserve the
estate for the executor or
administrator afterwards appointed,
it would be prudent and reasonable
to appoint someone interested in
preserving the estate for its eventual
distribution to the heirs. This would
ensure that the special administrator
would not expose the estate to losses
that would effectively diminish the
shares of the heirs. Thus, there would
be no logical reason to appoint
Diosdado – a debtor to the estate
and otherwise a stranger to the
deceased, as the special
administrator.
EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
OBJECTIVES
I
Give at least three grounds for the
removal or resignation of an
executor or administrator.
II
What are certain articles that are not
to be considered as assets and must
be excluded in the inventory of the
estate made by the executor or
administrator?
III
What is a special administrator?
IV
What are the general powers of
executors or administrators?
V
What are the duties of executors or
administrators?
HYPOTHETICALS
I
X, the administrator of Z’s estate,
entered into several contracts of
lease over the real and personal
property of the estate with Y. When X
asked Y for payment of rentals, Y
refused to pay. Y reasons that the
lease contracts were void from the
beginning because X did not seek
prior approval of the probate court
 before entering into the lease
contracts. Is Y justified in refusing to
pay rentals?
II
D, E and F are partners who own and
operate DEF Leppard Records. When
D died due to over-intoxication, the
probate court appointed Atty. A as
the executor of his estate in
accordance with D’s will. Atty. A
sought to inspect the books of DEF
Leppard Records for purposes of
inventory and appraisal of D’s share
as a partner but E and F refused to
allow Atty. A access. E and F claim
that Atty. A cannot pry into
partnership affairs because a
partnership is a fiduciary and
personal relationship governed by
the principle of delectus personae.
Can E and F be compelled to show
the partnership books to Atty. A?
III
N is the named executor of M’s
estate. A day after receiving his
letters testamentary, N was
convicted of the crime of Interruption
of Religious Worship and was sent to
jail for six months and one day. P,
M’s brother, sought to have N
removed as executor but Atty. Q, N’s
attorney, defends that imprisonment
is not one of the grounds stated
under Rule 82 of the Rules of Court.
Atty. Q adds that N’s prison sentence
is short and that he can discharge his
role as an executor after he serves
his sentence. Is the defense of Atty.
Q tenable?
VI
B died intestate. B’s children and her
husband both predeceased her. A is
the niece of B. She was appointed
the judicial guardian of B until the
latter died. She was likewise
appointed special administrator over
the estate of B. C, the illegitimate
child of B’s husband, opposed the
appointment of A on the ground that
he is more qualified to be the special
administrator as the illegitimate son
of B’s husband as compared to A
who was a mere niece, a collateral
relative. Is C correct?
V
S is appointed by the probate court
as the administrator of U’s estate. T
filed a collection suit in a different
court against S and the Estate of U for
the payment of a debt amounting to
P3 Million. Wanting to settle the
matter quickly, S offers to enter into a
Compromise Agreement with T
whereby a parcel of land in U’s
estate would be conveyed to T in
payment of the debt. T’s old lawyer
suddenly dies so T asks for your
advice on whether or not he should
accept the Compromise Agreement
offered by T.
RECITATION QUESTIONS

1. The court can still appoint an

administrator even if the deceased
left a will.
2. The executor or administrator
cannot lease real properties of the
estate without prior approval from
the probate court.
3. An executor may be removed or
allowed to resign when a will is
discovered, proved and allowed by
court.
4. The executor or administrator has
the power to access corporate books
and property in furtherance of their
powers of inventory and appraisal.
5. The appointment of a debtor of the
estate as its special administrator
constitutes grave abuse of discretion
of the court’s power of appointment.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED By:

ILAO, MIKAELA GABRIEL
MALIAMAN, DALIMAY RUTH
AQUINO, JENNIFER
SALES, JOAN
JD-3

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO :
ATTY. ROGER NAFIANO