This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-03-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| (c) If there is no such creditor competent and willing to serve, it may be granted to such other person as the court may select. However, this Court has consistently ruled that the order of preference in the appointment of a regular administrator as provided in the afore-quoted provision does not apply to the selection of a special administrator.[13] The preference under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court for the next of kin refers to the appointment of a regular administrator, and not of a special administrator, as the appointment of the latter lies entirely in the discretion of the court, and is not appealable.[14] | |||||
|
2005-11-11 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The petitioners' strenuous invocation of Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court is misplaced. The rule refers to the appointment of regular administrators of estates; Section 1, Rule 80, on the other hand, applies to the appointment of a special administrator. It has long been settled that the appointment of special administrators is not governed by the rules regarding the appointment of regular administrators.[37] Thus, in Roxas v. Pecson,[38] this Court ruled:It is well settled that the statutory provisions as to the prior or preferred right of certain persons to the appointment of administrator under Section 1, Rule 81, as well as the statutory provisions as to causes for removal of an executor or administrator under section 653 of Act No. 190, now Section 2, Rule 83, do not apply to the selection or removal of special administrator. ... As the law does not say who shall be appointed as special administrator and the qualifications the appointee must have, the judge or court has discretion in the selection of the person to be appointed, discretion which must be sound, that is, not whimsical or contrary to reason, justice or equity. | |||||