This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-08-22 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence teaches us that the appointment of a special administrator lies within the discretion of the court. In Heirs of Belinda Dahlia A. Castillo v. Lacuata-Gabriel,[24] it was stated that: 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. x x x 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. (Emphasis supplied; citation omitted.) | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| A special administrator is an officer of the court who is subject to its supervision and control, expected to work for the best interest of the entire estate, with a view to its smooth administration and speedy settlement.[33] When appointed, he or she is not regarded as an agent or representative of the parties suggesting the appointment.[34] The principal object of the appointment of a temporary administrator is to preserve the estate until it can pass to the hands of a person fully authorized to administer it for the benefit of creditors and heirs, pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court.[35] | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We affirm the appellate court's ruling that the trial court did not act with grave abuse of discretion in revoking Alvin's appointment as special co-administrator. Settled is the rule that the selection or removal of special administrators is not governed by the rules regarding the selection or removal of regular administrators. [10] Courts may appoint or remove special administrators based on grounds other than those enumerated in the Rules, at their discretion.[11] As long as the said discretion is exercised without grave abuse, higher courts will not interfere with it. [12] This, however, is no authority for the judge to become partial, or to make his personal likes and dislikes prevail over, or his passions to rule, his judgment. The exercise of such discretion must be based on reason, equity, justice and legal principles.[13] | |||||