Pijuan vs Guerra  In the Philippines, Carlos lived maritally with Rizalina Perez with whom he had two

G.R. No. L-21917 / November 29, 1966 / Concepcion, CJ./ Specpro – Appointment of Special children. Teodoro informed Manuela that Carlos was in Negros Occidental so she went
Administrator /JMB to the PHL in 1960, but Carlos refused to admit her into his residence 
NATURE Appeal from CFI  Manuela filed for support and the annulment of some alleged donations of conjugal
PETITIONERS Testate Estate of the deceased, Carlos Guerra Y Monasterio, Marcelo Pijuan property in the CFI of Negros Occ. The CFI issued an order granting her support of
RESPONDENTS Manuela Ruiz Vda. De Guerra P2,000/month, which was later on reduced to P1,000/month.

SUMMARY. Carlos abandoned his wife Manuela and left for the PHL, living in with Death of the Husband + Probate of the Will
another woman. His wife followed suit but Carlos did not let her in his residence. The wife  Carlos died in 1962 leaving a purported last will and testament naming Marcelo Pijuan
filed for support, which was granted. When Carlos died, he left a purported will which as executor AND disinheriting Manuela and Teodoro. Marcelo instituted a specpro for
named an executor and disinherited Manuela and their son. Support payments for probate, and through his ex parte motion, was named administrator of the estate
Manuela also ceased when Carlos died. Manuela filed a motion to continue support without bond. Manuela and Teodoro opposed this of course, along with a Pilar Guerra,
payments and for her to be appointed administratrix. an alleged illegitimate daughter.
The Court held that Manuela was entitled to support. In the absence of proof that the  Manuela filed a motion for the continuation of support up to the final determination of
property held by the Special Admin (Marcelo) was part of the conjugal partnership, the
the case, alleging that such support payments had been suspended upon the death of
Court shall presume that the estate of the deceased consists of property belonging to the Carlos. She also moved for appointment as special administratrix.
conjugal partnership. Manuela though, could not be named administrator. The
 Both motions and their MR’s were denied, so Manuela appealed to the SC.
preference stated in Sec. 6, R78 (surviving wife…) does not apply in this case because the
deceased did not die intestate, and a person was named in his will to be appointed
ISSUES & RATIO.
executor.
1. WON Manuela should be denied support. NO. She is entitled to support.
DOCTRINE. It is next urged by Mrs. Gurrea that the lower court erred in denying her
Basis for CFI’s Ruling:
petition for appointment as administratrix, for, as widow of the deceased, she claims a
[Rule] Pursuant to Art 188 of the Civil Code (Art 1430 of the Spanish CC), the support of a
right of preference under Section 6 of Rule 78 of the Revised Rules of Court. In the
surviving spouse constitutes, not an encumbrance upon the estate of the decedent, but
language of this provision, said preference exists "if no executor is named in the will or
merely an advance from her share of said estate.
the executor or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give bond, or a
[Applied] Mrs. Gurrea is not entitled to such advance, there being neither allegation nor
person dies intestate." None of these conditions obtains, however, in the case at bar. The
proof that she had contributed any paraphernal property to the estate or that the same
deceased Carlos Gurrea has left a document purporting to be his will, seemingly, is still
includes properties forming part of the conjugal partnership between her and the deceased.
pending probate. So, it cannot be said, as yet, that he has died intestate. Again, said
document names Marcelo Pijuan as executor thereof, and it is not claimed that he is
SC – CFI misconstrued the provision, along with Manresa’s view1 regarding the same.
incompetent therefor. What is more, he has not only not refused the trust, but, has, also,
 Manresa’s view is predicated upon the premise that it has been proven that none
expressly accepted it, by applying for his appointment as executor, and, upon his
of the properties under administration belongs to the surviving spouse either as
appointment as special administrator, has assumed the duties thereof. It may not be
paraphernal property or as part of the conjugal partnership.
amiss to note that the preference accorded by the aforementioned provision of the Rules
 However, in this case, the CFI denied support because of the absence of proof as
of Court to the surviving spouse refers to the appoint of a regular administrator or
regards the status, nature or character of the property now under the custody of
administratrix, not to that of a special administrator, and that the order appointing the
the Special Administrator.
latter lies within the discretion of the probate court, and is not appealable.
Thus, given the lack of proof, the Court is bound by law to assume that the estate of the
deceased consists of property belonging to the conjugal partnership, one-half of which
FACTS.
belongs presumptively to Manuela, aside from such part of the share of the deceased in said
The Broken Family + Claim for Support
partnership as may belong to her as one of the compulsory heirs, if his alleged will were not
 Appellant Manuela was married to Carlos in Spain in 1932 and they had a child named
allowed to probate, or, even if probated, if the provision therein disinheriting her were
Teodoro. They lived happily until 1945, when Carlos abandoned Manuela and left for
nullified.
the PHL with Teodoro.
2. WON WON Manuela should be appointed administrator. NO.
Manuela’s Argument:

1Manresa’s opinion was in Spanish. Google Translate failed me: “Proved that neither concept of equity , either as marital corresponds conjuge be no survivor or heirs of the predeceased
“Probado que ni en concepto de capital propio, ni como gananciales corresponde haber alguno al conjuge , there is the granting of foods , as these , indeed , in accordance with Article 1430 , are just a foretaste of the respective
sobreviviente o a los herederos del premuerto, no cabe la concesion de alimentos, pues estos, en efecto, con arreglo el having of each part .”
articulo 1430, son solo un anticipo del respectivo haber de cada participe.”
  She has a right of preference as the surviving wife under Sec 6, Rule 782 of the
Revised RoC.

SC: Rule does not apply to the case at bar.

 None of the conditions (no executor named, executor/s incompetent, fail to
give bond, deceased dies intestate) obtain in the case at bar.
 Carlos died leaving a purported will which is currently pending probate so he
can’t be said to have died intestate.
 Marcelo Pijuan was named executor in the purported will so it can’t be said
that no executor was named.
 Not only has Marcelo not refused the trust (hassle double negative), he also
has expressly accepted it by applying for his appointment of executor, and
being named special administrator.
 Moreover, the preference accorded by that rule to the surviving spouse refers
to the appointment of a regular administrator, not to that of a special
administrator, and that the order appointing the latter lies within the discretion
of the probate court and is not appealable.

DECISION.
Orders appealed from are hereby modified, in the sense that Manuela Ruiz Vda. de Gurrea
shall receive from the estate of the deceased a monthly allowance of P1,000, by way of
support, and that, in all other respects, said orders are hereby affirmed.

2R78, Sec. 6 – If no executor is named in the will, or the executor,

or executors are incompetent, refuse the trust, or fail to give the
bond, or a person dies intestate, administration shall be granted…