legal knowledge base

Popular Posts

Jun 18, 2008

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

  • Administrator's bond is not a necessary expense chargeable against the estate


Carlos Moran Sison was appointed, without compensation, as judicial administrator of the estate of Margarita David. He filed a bond of P5,000, the premium of which as well as renewal fee he charged as disbursement items in his accounting.

Teodoro, one of the heirs, objected on the grounds that they are not necessary expenses of administration and should not be charged against the estate.


  • Whether or not a judicial administrator, serving without compensation, is entitled to charge as an expense of administration the premiums paid on his bond


IN resolving the case, the Supreme Court cited the case of Sulit vs. Santos, 56 Phil 626, where the Court ruled that the expense incurred by an executor or administrator to produce a bond is not a proper charge against the estate. The Court further commented in that case that the ability to give bond is in the nature of a qualification for office. The execution and the approval of the bond constitute a condition precedent to acceptance of the responsibilities of the trust.

The difference between Sulit vs. Santos, and the present case is that in the former, the administrator accepted the trust with the emolument that the law allows where in the latter, the administrator accepted the same without compensation.

Still, the difference is of no merit. It is far-fetched to conclude that the giving of a bond by an administrator is a necessary expense in the care, management and settlement of the estate within the meaning of the law, because these expenses are incurred "after the executor or administrator has met the requirement of the law and has entered upon the performance of his duties."


Copyright © Scire Licet | Powered by Blogger
Design by Duan Zhiyan | Blogger Theme by