Elena Cotia, et al. vs. Maria Jimenez, et al.

A probate court may remove an administratrix who neglects to render an account and settle the estate according to law, and its order of removal will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion; unauthorized disbursements from the estate without prior judicial authority reinforce the removal.

The intestate estate of Mariano Cotia was administered by Elena Cotia, with Maria Jimenez and others appearing as oppositors-appellees. The governing framework is the Rules of Court on the administration and settlement of estates, particularly the probate court's authority to require an accounting and to remove an administrator who neglects to render an account and settle the estate according to law. Also relevant is the rule that allowances to the widow and minor or incapacitated children of a deceased person are to be received under the direction of the court.

In the intestate estate of the deceased Mariano Cotia, Elena Cotia was appointed administratrix on June 13, 1950. Maria Jimenez and others appeared as oppositors-appellees in the proceedings.

Elena Cotia failed to submit an account of her administration up to June 18, 1955. On motion of the oppositors-appellees, the lower court ordered her to submit said accounting. She subsequently presented a statement of accounts.

During the hearing of that statement of accounts, it was established that Elena Cotia had spent P64,650 for family expenses and attorney's fees without prior judicial authority. The oppositors-appellees then filed a motion for her removal as administratrix, not only because she neglected to submit the accounting required by the Rules and to settle the estate, but also because she had made unauthorized disbursements. The lower court relieved her as administratrix and appointed Philippine Trust Company in her stead.

• Neglect to Render Account and Settle Estate: Oppositors-appellees sought removal because Elena Cotia neglected to submit the accounting required by the Rules and to settle the estate.
• Unauthorized Disbursements: Oppositors-appellees also sought removal because she had made unauthorized disbursements.

• Removal of Administratrix: Whether the lower court abused its discretion in removing Elena Cotia as administratrix of the estate of Mariano Cotia.
• Unauthorized Disbursements: Whether the administratrix's payment of P64,650 for family expenses and attorney's fees without prior judicial authority supported her removal under the Rules of Court.

• Removal of Administratrix: No. The lower court did not abuse its discretion; Section 2, Rule 83 expressly authorizes removal of an administrator who neglects to render an account and settle the estate according to law.
• Unauthorized Disbursements: Yes. The payment of P64,650 for family expenses and attorney's fees without prior court authority was seemingly in disregard of Section 3, Rule 84, which requires allowances to the widow and minor or incapacitated children to be received under the direction of the court.

• Removal of Administratrix: The Court reviewed the order for abuse of discretion. Elena Cotia was appointed on June 13, 1950. She failed to submit an account of her administration up to June 18, 1955, and was ordered by the lower court, on motion of the oppositors-appellees, to submit the accounting. The appealed order finds express sanction in Section 2, Rule 83, which provides that the court may remove an administrator who neglects to render his account and settle the estate according to law. The lower court therefore did not abuse its discretion in removing her.
• Unauthorized Disbursements: During the hearing of the statement of accounts she subsequently presented, it was established that she spent P64,650 for family expenses and attorney's fees without prior judicial authority. This was seemingly in disregard of Section 3, Rule 84, which provides that the widow and minor or incapacitated children of a deceased person shall receive, under the direction of the court, such allowances as are provided by law. This unauthorized disbursement further supported the removal.

• Removal of administrator for neglect to render account and settle estate — Under Section 2, Rule 83, the court may remove an administrator who neglects to render his account and settle the estate according to law. The Court applied this provision to uphold the removal of Elena Cotia, who failed to submit an accounting as of June 18, 1955, despite an order to do so.
• Court-directed allowances to widow and minor or incapacitated children — Under Section 3, Rule 84, the widow and minor or incapacitated children of a deceased person shall receive, under the direction of the court, such allowances as are provided by law. The Court noted that the administratrix's payment of P64,650 for family expenses and attorney's fees without prior judicial authority was seemingly in disregard of this requirement.
• Abuse of discretion standard in removal of administrator — An appellate court will affirm a probate court's order removing an administrator absent an abuse of discretion. The Court found no abuse because the removal was expressly sanctioned by Section 2, Rule 83.

• "We are of the opinion that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in removing the administratrix, Elena Cotia." — This states the core conclusion on the removal issue.
• "The appealed order finds express sanction in Section 2, Rule 83, of the Rules of Court, which provides that the court may remove an administrator who neglects to render his account and settle the estate according to law." — This identifies the controlling rule authorizing removal.
• "What is more, the family expenses and attorney's fees in the aggregate amount of P64,650 paid by the administratrix out of the estate without previous authority of the court, is seemingly in disregard of Section 3, Rule 84, of the Rules of Court, to the effect that the widow and minor or incapacitated children of a deceased person shall receive, under the direction of the court, such allowances as are provided by law." — This explains the significance of the unauthorized disbursements.

• Section 2, Rule 83, Rules of Court — Provides that the court may remove an administrator who neglects to render his account and settle the estate according to law. Applied to uphold the removal of Elena Cotia.
• Section 3, Rule 84, Rules of Court — Provides that the widow and minor or incapacitated children of a deceased person shall receive, under the direction of the court, such allowances as are provided by law. Applied to characterize the P64,650 in family expenses and attorney's fees paid without prior judicial authority as seemingly in disregard of the rule.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ.