This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-10-10 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The paramount consideration in the appointment of an administrator over the estate of a decedent is the prospective administrator's interest in the estate.[9] This is the same consideration which Section 6, Rule 78 takes into account in establishing the order of preference in the appointment of administrator for the estate. The rationale behind the rule is that those who will reap the benefit of a wise, speedy and economical administration of the estate, or, in the alternative, suffer the consequences of waste, improvidence or mismanagement, have the highest interest and most influential motive to administer the estate correctly.[10] In all, given that the rule speaks of an order of preference, the person to be appointed administrator of a decedent's estate must demonstrate not only an interest in the estate, but an interest therein greater than any other candidate. | |||||
|
2010-09-29 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Contending that the portions sold in favor of the complaining buyers resulted from the partitioning of the aforesaid parcel by its co-owners, petitioner Clemencia Calara filed an answer dated 11 July 1982 alleging that the subdivision was exempt from P.D. 957 and that complaints for ejectment were about to be filed against said buyers.[5] On 29 July 1982, petitioners consequently filed against respondents Spouses Jesus and Teresita Francisco the complaint for unlawful detainer docketed as Civil Case No. 993 before the then Municipal Court of Los Banos, Laguna.[6] A separate complaint for unlawful detainer was likewise filed by petitioners against Gaudencio Navarro and was docketed before the same court as Civil Case No. 994.[7] | |||||