WILSON VS REAR CASE DIGEST

G.R. No. 31860. October 16, 1930
In the matter of the Estate of Charles C. Rear, deceased. J.J. WILSON, administrator-appellee, v. M. T. REAR ET AL., heirs-appellants.
J. A. Wolfson and Lionel D. Hargis, for Appellants.
Juan S. Alano and Pastor Kimpo, for Appellee.

SPECIAL PROCEEDING; RULE 84

FACTS:

• Rear was murdered by some Moros on his plantation

• The whole plantation consisted of public lands. J.J. Wilson qualified as special administrator of the estate

• Later, the property of the estate was appraised of which the commissioners filed an inventory and report, which was also signed by Wilson.

• The commissioners made and filed a report of claims against the estate, but by reason of the fact that it was claimed and alleged that the administrator did not have any funds to pay, the court ordered the administrator to sell a portion of the property.

• The court granted this petition, and after due notice, the public sale took place, and the property was sold 

• Wilson submitted a report covering his administration. Wilson filed his final account which later was amended, to which the heirs made numerous and specific objections.

• It further appears from the amended account that the total amount of cash received by the administrator, including the sale to Mannion and the total amount of cash disbursed leaves a deficit or balance due and owing from the estate.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Wilson, as special administrator and as administrator, was neglectful and imprudent

HELD:

• YES. Wilson acted neglectful and imprudent. He was appointed and qualified as administrator, and the law imposed upon him legal duties and obligations, among which was to handle the estate in a business-like manner, marshal its assets, and close the estate without any unreasonable or unnecessary delay.

• Neither does an administrator, in particular, without a specific showing or an order of the court, have any legal right to continue the operation of the business in which the deceased was engaged, or to eat up and absorb the assets of the estate in the payment of operating expenses. Yet, in the instant case, the administrator on his own volition and without any authority or process of court continued the operation of the plantation, and in the end, as shown by his own report, the estate, which was appraised with actual debts of the deceased only was all wiped out and lost, and left with a deficit.

• If the personal property of the estate had been promptly sold, when it should have been, and sold for its appraised value, all the debts of the deceased and the court costs and expenses of administration would have been paid. Instead of doing that, and without any order, process or authority of the court, the administrator, as appears from his amended final account, continued the operation of the plantation and the employment of Fleming as manager and a large number of men, so that at the time of the filing of the amended final account, the total expense and the net result of which was that all of the property of the estate was consumed, lost or destroyed, leaving a deficit against the estate.

• Even so, considering the fact that Wilson’s home and place of business was 300 kilometers from the plantation, and that in the very nature of things, he could not give the business of the estate his personal attention, we are disposed to be more or less lenient, and to allow him the actual operating expenses of the plantation for the first eight months of his appointment

• The law does not impose upon an administrator a high degree of care in the administration of an estate, but it does impose upon him ordinary and usual care, for want of which he is personally liable. 

• The order of the lower court approving the final account of Wilson as administrator is reversed and set aside, and a judgment will be entered in favor of the heirs and against the administrator.