Special Rules and Proceedings: Rule 83
RULE 83
Inventory and Appraisal. Provision for Support of Family
Section 1. Inventory and appraisal to be returned within three months. —
Within three (3) months after his appointment
every executor or administrator shall return to the court
a true inventory and appraisalof all real and personal estate
of the deceased which has come into his possession or knowledge.
In the appraisement of such estate,
the court may order one or more
of the inheritance tax appraisers to give his or their assistance.
Inventory and Appraisal
Executors/administrators must submit an inventory and appraisal of the deceased’s estate within three (3) months of appointment.
The inventory includes all real and personal property that has come into their possession or knowledge.
The rule obligates the administrator or executor to submit a true inventory of the decedent's estate within three months from his appointment.
Section 1 of Rule 83 requires the administrator to return to the court a true inventory and appraisal of all the real and personal estate of the deceased within three months from appointment.
Section 8 of Rule 85 requires the administrator to render an account of his administration within one year from receipt of the letters testamentary or of administration.
The purpose of the inventory is to aid the court in revising the accounts and determining the liabilities of the executor or administrator and in making a final and equitable distribution (partition) of the estate and otherwise to facilitate the administration of the estate.
As discussed earlier, the probate court has authority to provisionally determine whether a certain property should be included in the inventory.
While the rule appears unequivocal that the inventory must be submitted within three months from appointment, such period is not mandatory.
Aranas v. Mercado:
The probate court, acting on a motion filed by one of the heirs of the decedent to amend the inventory of the latter's properties, ordered the administrator to redo the inventory, to include all the properties of the decedent.
The administrator appealed said order, claiming that some of the properties of the decedent had already been sold. Upholding the probate court's order, the Supreme Court held that the usage of the word "all" in Section 1, Rule 83 means that no properties appearing to belong to the decedent can be excluded from the inventory.
The fact that the properties were already covered by Torrens titles in the name of a third person cannot be a valid basis for immediately excluding certain properties from the inventory. The Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring title to lands, as it is merely a system of registration of titles to lands.
The objective of the Rules in requiring the inventory and appraisal of the estate of the decedent is to aid the court in revising the accounts and determining the liabilities of the executor or the administrator, and in making a final and equitable distribution of the estate.
Absent grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC, the Court of Appeals cannot supplant the former's judgment on which properties are to be included in the inventory.
Section 2. Certain article not to be inventoried. —
The wearing apparel of the surviving husband
or wife and minor children.,
the marriage bed and bedding,
and such provisions and other articles
as will necessarily be consumed
in the substinence of the family of the deceased,
under the direction of the court,
shall not be considered as assets,
nor administered as such,
and shall not be included in the inventory.
The court may require assistance from inheritance tax appraisers in the valuation process.
Exemptions from Inventory
Certain personal and household items are not included as assets in the inventory:
Wearing apparel of the surviving spouse and minor children
The marriage bed and bedding
Essential provisions and consumables necessary for the family’s subsistence
Section 3. Allowance to widow and family. —
The widow and minor or incapacitated children
of a deceased person,
during the settlement of the estate,
shall receive therefrom,
under the direction of the court,
such allowance as are provided by law.
Allowance for the Widow and Family
The widow and minor/incapacitated children are entitled to financial support from the estate.
The court determines and directs the allowance in accordance with the law.
The widow and the minor or incapacitated children of the decedent are entitled to receive an allowance while the estate is being settled.
These allowances are in the nature of advance payments of their share in the estate, which shall be deducted from their respective shares that may be allotted to them.
The allowance does not actually encumber the decedent's property; rather, it refers to the general estate, which includes the surviving spouse's share in the conjugal partnership.
Consequently, allowance must still be granted even if the decedent's liabilities exceed the value of the estate since the allowance actually already refers to the surviving spouse's share in the conjugal partnership.
Nonetheless, allowance may be denied when the decedent's liabilities exceed the estate's value where the surviving spouse did not contribute any property to the marriage.
In such case, the surviving spouse and the minor or incapacitated children cannot be granted an allowance because there would be no property left from which their advances may be deducted after the creditors are paid.
While Section 3 appears to limit the allowance to the surviving spouse and minor or incapacitated children, the Supreme Court has recognized the right of an emancipated child of the decedent to support:
While the Rules of Court limit allowances to the widow and minor or incapacitated children of the deceased, the Civil Code gives the surviving spouse and his/her children without distinction. Hence, the private respondents Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina, and Miguel, all surnamed Santero, are entitled to allowances as advances from their shares in the inheritance from their father Pablo Santero. Since the provision of the Civil Code, a substantive law, gives the surviving spouse and the children the right to receive support during the liquidation of the estate of the deceased, such right cannot be impaired by Rule 83, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, which is a procedural rule. Be it noted, however, that with respect to 'spouse,' the same must be the 'legitimate spouse.'
Cases:
Santero vs. Court of First Instance of Cavite (GR No. L-61700, Sept 14, 1987)
Motion for Allowance filed by private respondents Victor, Rodrigo, Anselmina, and Miguel Santero through their guardian, Anselma Diaz.
The private respondents, children of Pablo Santero and Anselma Diaz, requested allowances for tuition, clothing, and living expenses.
Petitioners Princesita Santero-Morales, Federico Santero, and Winy Santero, the other children of Pablo Santero with Felixberta Pacursa, opposed the motion, arguing:
The private respondents were no longer minors and some were employed.
The administrator lacked sufficient funds as the funds were held in trust.
The court granted the allowance, citing:
Article 290 of the Civil Code (support includes education even beyond majority age).
Section 3, Rule 83 of the Rules of Court (widow and minor/incapacitated children receive allowance).
Subsequently, another Motion for Allowance was filed to include three more children of Anselma Diaz. The court granted the motion but later reversed the inclusion of the additional three children.
Petitioners raised a Petition for Certiorari, arguing the court committed abuse of discretion by:
Granting allowance despite private respondents being of legal age and employed.
Granting allowance without verification of schooling status.
Approving the motion without conducting a hearing.
Whether the respondent court act with grave abuse of discretion in granting the allowance to private respondents.
The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Private respondents are entitled to allowances under:
Article 290 of the Civil Code – Support includes education even beyond majority age.
Article 188 of the Civil Code – Children are entitled to support from the common mass of property during estate liquidation.
Rule 83, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court, which limits allowances to widows and minor/incapacitated children, cannot override substantive rights granted under the Civil Code.
The Motion for Allowance was properly heard:
It contained a Notice of Hearing.
Petitioners’ lawyer received and opposed the motion.
The court had granted similar allowances in previous years.
The respondent court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in granting the allowance as it was merely an advance from the children's inheritance.
Sebial vs. Sebial (GR No. L-23419, June 27, 1975)
Gelacio Sebial died intestate in 1943 in Pinamungajan, Cebu.
He allegedly had two sets of children:
With first wife Leoncia Manikis (d. 1919): Roberta, Balbina, and Juliano.
With second wife Dolores Enad (m. 1927): Benjamina, Valentina, Ciriaco, Gregoria, Esperanza, and Luciano.
In 1960, Benjamina Sebial (child of the second marriage) petitioned for the settlement of the estate and requested to be appointed as administratrix (Special Proc. No. 2049-R).
Roberta Sebial (child of the first marriage) opposed the petition, arguing:
The estate was already partitioned among the heirs in 1945.
If necessary, she should be the administratrix, as she resided where the estate was located.
Benjamina’s proper remedy was an action to rescind the partition.
CFI-Cebu: Appointed Benjamina Sebial as administratrix and declared the 1945 partition invalid.
Oppositors moved to terminate administration proceedings, claiming the estate was:
Valued at less than ₱6,000
Already partitioned
Court-approved inventory (1961):
7 parcels of land (total value: ₱9,000)
2 houses (valued at ₱8,000)
Fruits of properties (₱5,000 allegedly received by children of the first marriage)
Oppositors challenged the inventory, arguing:
Some properties were already transferred to third parties.
The two houses were destroyed in 1943.
The valuation was inflated.
Probate court ordered:
Delivery of certain parcels of land to the administratrix.
Rejected oppositors’ motion for reconsideration and their claim that the court lacked jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court, as it involved legal issues regarding:
Rule 74, Section 2 (summary settlement)
Rule 83, Section 1 (inventory requirement)
Whether the probate court had jurisdiction to approve the late-filed inventory.
The three-month period for filing an inventory under Rule 83, Section 1 is not mandatory.
The probate court retains jurisdiction over the estate until proceedings are closed.
Whether the estate should have been summarily settled under Rule 74, Section 2, given the alleged small value of the estate.
The estate’s valuation was contested (initially estimated at ₱5,000 but later valued at ₱17,000).
The lower court failed to ascertain the actual value of the estate.
Since an administrator was already appointed, the probate court could proceed with the case expeditiously rather than dismissing it for summary settlement.
Whether the order to deliver parcels of land to the administratrix was proper.
The probate court erred in ordering delivery without receiving evidence of ownership.
Title disputes should be resolved in a separate action (except if all parties are heirs and voluntarily submit to probate court jurisdiction).
Third parties in possession of properties (e.g., Lorenzo Rematado, Lazaro Recuelo) could not be ordered to surrender the lands without due process.
The probate court should:
Receive evidence on the true assets of the estate.
Determine whether partition in 1945 was valid.
Resolve title issues separately if needed.
If no assets remain, or if prescription has set in, the court should dismiss the intestate proceediangs.
The December 11, 1961 order approving the inventory was not conclusive on ownership and valuation.
The order to deliver land to the administratrix was set aside.
Case remanded for further proceedings to determine the actual estate assets, partition, and ownership disputes.
Advincula vs. Tedoro (99 SCRA 413)
Emilio Advincula was appointed special administrator of his deceased wife’s estate on November 22, 1954, and later became the regular administrator on February 12, 1955.
Josefa Lacson Advincula’s brothers submitted a document claiming it was her last will and testament.
Advincula opposed the will’s probate, arguing it lacked the deceased’s signature, was obtained through fraud/duress, and did not meet formal requirements.
Enrique Lacson, a brother of the deceased and named executor in the will, moved to replace Advincula as administrator.
Lacson amended his motion, alleging Advincula was incompetent and unsuitable.
CFI-Negros Occidental: Presided by Judge Jose Teodoro Sr., granted Lacson’s motion on May 18, 1955, revoking Advincula’s appointment.
Advincula sought reconsideration, which was denied.
He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing grave abuse of discretion by Judge Teodoro.
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in removing Emilio Advincula as administrator of his wife’s estate and appointing Enrique Lacson instead.
The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari, reversing the trial court’s orders and making the preliminary injunction permanent.
The Court ruled that Lacson’s appointment as executor could only take effect after the will was duly probated, as per Rule 79, Section 4 of the Rules of Court.
The existence of a will does not automatically revoke letters of administration until it is proved and allowed by the court, per Rule 83, Section 1.
The allegation that Advincula was incompetent, incapable, or unsuitable was unsubstantiated. Being a surviving spouse and forced heir, he had a legitimate interest in the estate.
Advincula was not found guilty of any specific legal ground for removal under Rule 83, Section 2 of the Rules of Court.
Judge Teodoro exceeded his jurisdiction in removing Advincula and appointing Lacson as administrator.
In re: Estate of Deceased Andres Reyes (GR No. L-24092, Oct. 28, 1936):
Andres Reyes and Luciana Farlin were married in 1893 and had six children; only Juana Reyes de Ilano survived.
Andres leased friar lands, later purchasing them between 1909-1921.
Luciana purchased friar lands in 1910; she passed away in 1922.
Andres remarried Felisa Camia, with whom he had a son, Bibiano Reyes.
Felisa bought additional friar lands during the marriage.
Andres died in 1932, leaving a will, which was probated in 1933.
Felisa became the executrix of the estate.
Felisa proposed a project of partition, Juana opposed, claiming improper valuation and inclusion of conjugal properties from the first marriage.
Court rejected her project of partition and approved the counterproject of Juana Reyes de Ilano.
The executrix’s accounts were approved with amendments, and a balance of P367.11 was ordered to be reimbursed to the heirs.
Whether Juana Reyes de Ilano can challenge the valuation of properties after the commissioners’ report was declared final.
On the Finality of the Committee’s Report:
The court ruled that while the committee’s findings on claims were final in the absence of appeal, its appraisal of the estate was not conclusive. The court was not bound to adopt the committee’s valuation.
The June 19, 1933 order declared final only the report’s rejection of claims by certain creditors, not the valuation of properties.
Under Section 773 of the Code of Civil Procedure, creditors can appeal claim disallowances, but this does not apply to property valuations.
The court is not bound by the committee’s appraisal of the estate.
The lower court correctly allowed Benedicto A. Ilano to testify against the committee’s appraisal.
On the Executrix’s Expenses:
The court allowed most of the expenses incurred by the executrix, except for P4.20 related to securing a bond. The total approved expenses amounted to P1,057.68, and the executrix was entitled to reimbursement and commission.
Approved: Transportation, subsistence, medicine, electricity, and funeral expenses incurred by the executrix.
Rejected: Expenses for obtaining a surety bond (P4.20).
Total amount approved: P1,057.68.
Total reimbursement to executrix: P3,463.10 (after adding approved expenses).
Balance estate owes to executrix: P690.57, plus a P81.94 commission.
On the Status of Properties:
The court ruled that the parcels of land acquired during the first marriage of Andres Reyes were conjugal property. The properties acquired during his marriage to Felisa Camia were also classified as conjugal under the same legal principles.