Reynoso vs. Santiago

Mandamus lies to compel the appointment of a regular administrator after a will has been allowed, but it does not lie to compel the opening of a separate testate proceeding or the appointment of a particular administrator, because those matters are addressed to the court's sound discretion.

Salvadora Obispo's estate was the subject of an intestate administration proceeding initiated by Leoncio Cadiz and other heirs, while her surviving spouse Victorio Reynoso and eldest son Juan Reynoso asserted a document as her last will and testament. The Rules of Court governed the probate of wills, the appointment of executors and administrators, and the appointment of special administrators pending claims or appeals. The dispute concerned the proper procedural vehicle for administering the estate after the will was allowed on appeal.

Salvadora Obispo died leaving property that became the subject of administration proceedings. On April 29, 1947, Leoncio Cadiz and other heirs of the deceased filed an application in the Court of First Instance of Quezon for the administration of her property, docketed as intestate proceeding No. 2914. Victorio Reynoso, Salvadora's surviving spouse, and Juan Reynoso, her eldest son, opposed the application and filed a document purporting to be her last will and testament, together with a counter petition for its probate.

Upon trial, the court rejected the instrument as a forgery. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the finding of the court below, found the will authentic and drawn with all the formalities of law, and promulgated its decision on November 27, 1948. The dispositive portion of the appellate court's decision ordered (a) the legalization of the document as the last will and testament of Salvadora Obispo, (b) the opening of her testate estate, and (c) the appointment of an executor in accordance with Article 6, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.

Thereafter, Victorio Reynoso and Juan Reynoso filed two petitions. The first, filed in special proceeding No. 2914, prayed that the special administrator, Meliton Palabrica, who had previously been appointed in that proceeding, be ordered to turn over the properties of the deceased and the proceeds of coprax, nuts, and other agricultural products to Victorio Reynoso, to render an accounting within a reasonable time, and to close the intestate proceeding. The second petition, filed under a separate and new docket number, 3107, and with a different title, "Testate Estate of the deceased Salvadora Obispo," prayed that the estate be administered and settled in special proceeding No. 3107 and that Victorio Reynoso be appointed executor of the last will and testament. It also sought an accounting by Palabrica and delivery to the new executor of the properties that had come into his possession, including the proceeds from sales of coprax, nuts, and other products.

Judge Santiago decided the two petitions separately on April 20, 1949. With respect to the opening of another expediente, he believed that the proposed change or substitution was not only unnecessary but inconvenient and expensive, and that an intestate proceeding like No. 2914 could and should be converted into a testate proceeding in the same original expediente without changing its number, name, or title. As to the appointment of the deceased's husband as executor or administrator, he withheld action on the petition for the time being because of the pendency on appeal of a case in which the special administrator in special proceeding No. 2914 was plaintiff and appellee and Victorio Reynoso was defendant and appellant, involving the question whether an extensive parcel of coconut land was conjugal property or the exclusive property of the husband.

• Separate Testate Proceeding: Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Santiago to order the opening of the testate estate of Salvadora Obispo in place of special intestate proceeding No. 2914, after the Court of Appeals had allowed the will.
• Appointment of Executor: Petitioners sought to compel the appointment of Victorio Reynoso as executor of the decedent's last will and testament.
• Turnover and Accounting: In their petitions below, petitioners asked that special administrator Meliton Palabrica turn over the properties and proceeds of coprax, nuts, and other agricultural products to Victorio Reynoso, render an accounting, and that the intestate proceeding be closed.

• Separate Proceeding: Respondent judge believed that the proposed change or substitution was not only unnecessary but inconvenient and expensive, and that an intestate proceeding like No. 2914 could and should be converted into a testate proceeding in the same original expediente without changing its number, name, or title.
• Withholding Appointment: Respondent judge withheld action on the petition to appoint Victorio Reynoso as executor or administrator because of the pendency on appeal of a case involving whether an extensive parcel of coconut land was conjugal property or the exclusive property of the husband.

• Separate Testate Proceeding: Whether mandamus lies to compel the respondent judge to discontinue the intestate proceeding and open a separate testate proceeding under a new docket number and title.
• Appointment of a Regular Administrator: Whether mandamus lies to compel the appointment of a regular administrator after the Court of Appeals had allowed the will and ordered the appointment of an executor, notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal involving a property claim against the estate.
• Selection of the Administrator: Whether mandamus lies to compel the appointment of Victorio Reynoso specifically as executor or administrator.

• Separate Testate Proceeding: No. Whether to discontinue the intestate proceeding and constitute a new proceeding under a separate number and title is a matter of form within the sound discretion of the court and does not prejudice the substantial rights of heirs or creditors.
• Appointment of a Regular Administrator: Yes. The Court of Appeals having decreed probate and the appointment of an executor, there was no valid reason to retain a special administrator; a regular administrator should be appointed without delay.
• Selection of the Administrator: No. Mandamus lies only where the duty is specific and ministerial, not where judgment or discretion is exercised; while the surviving spouse has preference under Section 6, Rule 79, circumstances might warrant his rejection.

• Separate Testate Proceeding: The Court treated the question as entirely a matter of form and within the sound discretion of the court. It found no prejudice to the substantial rights of heirs or creditors, and observed that amor propio was perhaps the only thing at stake on this phase. Mandamus therefore could not issue to compel the opening of a separate expediente.
• Appointment of a Regular Administrator: The Court disagreed with the respondent judge's withholding of the appointment. If someone other than the surviving spouse were appointed, the feared conflict would not materialize. If Victorio Reynoso were chosen, a special administrator could be named to represent the estate in the suit against him under Section 8, Rule 87, which provides that an executor or administrator with a claim against the estate must give notice and the court shall appoint a special administrator with the same power and liability as the general administrator or executor in adjusting the claim; the situation fell within the spirit, if not the letter, of that provision. A special administrator is justified only when delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration is occasioned by an appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a will or some other cause. Because the Court of Appeals had decreed probate and the appointment of an albacea, no valid reason remained for retaining a special administrator. A regular administrator was necessary for the prompt settlement and distribution of the estate, since important duties and many court actions could not be accomplished before such appointment.
• Selection of the Administrator: Whether Victorio Reynoso should be appointed could not be decided in a petition for mandamus. Although the surviving spouse is entitled to preference under Section 6, Rule 79, circumstances might warrant his rejection and the appointment of someone else. Mandamus lies where the duty is specific and ministerial, not where judgment or discretion is exercised. Thus, the Court could command the court below to appoint a regular administrator but could not tell it whom to appoint.

• Mandamus lies only for ministerial duties — Mandamus is available to compel a specific, ministerial duty but not to control the exercise of judgment or discretion. The Court applied this rule to deny the request to open a separate testate proceeding and to appoint Victorio Reynoso specifically, while granting the request to compel the appointment of a regular administrator because that duty followed from the final probate decree.
• Conversion of an intestate proceeding into a testate proceeding is a matter of form — Whether an intestate proceeding already commenced should be discontinued and a new proceeding under a separate number and title should be constituted is entirely a matter of form and lies within the sound discretion of the court. It does not prejudice the substantial rights of heirs or creditors. The Court therefore denied the petition for a separate proceeding.
• Appointment of a special administrator is limited to cases of delay — A special administrator is justified only when there is delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration occasioned by an appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a will or some other cause. Once the Court of Appeals decreed probate and the appointment of an executor, no valid reason remained for retaining a special administrator; a regular administrator should be appointed without delay.
• Surviving spouse's preference in appointment is not absolute — Under Section 6, Rule 79, the surviving spouse is entitled to preference in the appointment of an administrator, but circumstances might warrant his rejection and the appointment of someone else. The Court could not, by mandamus, direct the appointment of Victorio Reynoso.
• Special administrator when the executor or administrator has a claim against the estate — Under Section 8, Rule 87, if the executor or administrator has a claim against the estate he represents, he must give written notice to the court, and the court shall appoint a special administrator who shall have the same power and be subject to the same liability as the general administrator or executor in the adjustment of the claim. The Court noted that if Victorio Reynoso were appointed, this provision could address the feared conflict.

• "Whether the intestate proceeding already commenced should be discontinued and a new proceeding under a separate number and title should be constituted is entirely a matter of form and lies within the sound discretion of the court. In no manner does it prejudice the substantial rights of any heirs or creditors." — This passage states the ratio for denying the request to open a separate testate proceeding.
• "The appointment of a special administrator is justified only when there is delay in granting letters testamentary or of administration occasioned by an appeal from the allowance or disallowance of a will or some other cause." — This passage defines the limited office of a special administrator and supports the order to appoint a regular administrator.
• "Mandamus lies where the duty is specific and ministerial. It does not lie where judgment or discretion is exercised in the performance of the act." — This is the canonical rule applied to deny the specific appointment of Victorio Reynoso and the separate proceeding.
• "While the surviving spouse is entitled to preference in the appointment (section 6, Rule 79), circumstances might warrant his rejection and the appointment of someone else." — This passage explains why the Court could not compel the appointment of Victorio Reynoso despite his statutory preference.

• Section 8, Rule 87 — Provides that if the executor or administrator has a claim against the estate he represents, he shall give notice thereof in writing to the court, and the court shall appoint a special administrator who shall, in the adjustment of such claim, have the same power and be subject to the same liability as the general administrator or executor in the settlement of claims. The Court applied this provision to the possibility that Victorio Reynoso might be appointed and a special administrator named to represent the estate in the suit against him.
• Section 6, Rule 79 — Provides that the surviving spouse is entitled to preference in the appointment of an administrator. The Court applied it by recognizing the preference but holding that it is not absolute and that circumstances might warrant the appointment of someone else.
• Article 6, Rule 70 — The Court of Appeals ordered the appointment of an executor (albacea) in accordance with this provision. The Supreme Court relied on that final decree to hold that a regular administrator should be appointed without delay and that the special administrator should not be retained.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, and Torres, JJ., concurred.