E. Letters testamentary and of administration (Rules 78 - 85) 1. When and to whom letters of administration granted – Rule 78
LIM vs. DIAZ-MILLAREZ G.R. No. L-17633, 19 OCT 1966, 18 SCRA 371
CIRILO LIM, petitioner-appellant, vs. BASILISA DIAZ-MILLAREZ, oppositor-appellee. REGALA, J FACTS: In this case, JOSE MILLAREZ died intestate, the following year, a certain CIRILIO LIM (nephew), alleging that the deceased left no other relatives nor a surviving spouse, filed a petition for his appointment as judicial administrator of the estate of the deceased (CFI of Neg. Occ.). BASILISA DIAZ-MILLAREZ (widow) on the other hand filed an opposition on such petition on two grounds: 1. that the petitioner has an adverse interest in the estate; and 2. that the properties of the estate are subject to a litigation between her as plaintiff and LIM as defendant. In the said Civil Case, where BASILISA is the plaintiff and LIM is the defendant, they were litigating between the ownership of the said properties of the deceased. BASILISA alleges that she is the legitimate widow of the deceased; on the other hand, LIM contends that BASILISA was not the legitimate spouse of the deceased. upon appeal to the CA, it was established that BASILISA was indeed a legitimate swpouse of the deceased for 23 years and that the subject property was conjugal. Since during the hearing, both parties manifested that there is an existing case between them over the property, the Trial Court (TC) dismissed the said petition for appointment. LIM’s M.R. also was denied so he elevated the case to the CA, which certified such appeal to the SC because no question of fact was involved. ISSUE: Whether LIM can be appointed as Judicial Administrator of the estate of the deceased? HELD: NO. LIM cannot be appointed as JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR of the ESTATE of the DECEASED because the COURT finds that LIM cannot perform the duties of an administrator on the following grounds: 1. LIM, as a relative of the deceased, has some interest adverse to that of BASILISA; and 2. LIM have some liabilities to BASILISA and the to the estate of the deceased. The COURT, in SIOCA vs. GARCIA, and AREVALO vs. BUSTAMANTE, held that one is considered to be unsuitable for appointment as administrator when he has adverse interest of some kind or hostility to those immediately interested in the estate. And that, “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”.
