Moran Sison v. Teodoro Digest

Moran Sison vs. Teodoro

G.R. No. L-9271 March 29, 1957

Bautista Angelo, J.:

Facts:

1. The CFI of Manila which had jurisdiction over the estate of Margarita David, issued an order appointing appellantCarlos Moran Sison as judicial administrator without compensation after filing a bond. After entering into his duties as administrator, he filed an accounting of his administration which included items as an expense of administration the premiums he paid on his bond.

2. One of the heirs, herein appellee Narcisa Teodoro, objected to the approval of the items. The court approved the report but disallowed the items objected to on the ground that these cannot be considered as expenses of administration. Moran Sison filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied hence this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not an executor or judicial administrator can validly charge the premiums on his bond as an expense of administration against the estate

NO.

The premiums paid by an executor or administrator serving without a compensation for his bond cannot be charged against the estate. Further Sec. 7 of Rule 86 of the Rules of Court  does not authorize the executor or administrator to charge to the estate the money spent for the bond. As held in the case of Sulit v. Santos (56 Phil 626), the position of an executor or administrator is one of trust. The law safeguards the estates of deceased persons by making as a requirement for qualification the ability to give a suitable bond. The execution of said bond is therefore a condition precedent to acceptance of the responsibilities of the trust.

Further, the giving of the bond is not a necessary expense in the care, management, and settlement of the estate within the meaning of Sec. 680 of the Civil Code of Procedure, since such are the requirements after the executor or administrator has already qualified for the office and has entered the performance of his duties.