G.R. No. 19153 ; June 30, 1922
B. E. JOHANNES, as principal administrator of the estate of Carmen Theodora Johannes, relator, vs. CARLOS A. IMPERIAL, as judge of the Court of First Instance, City of Manila, respondent.

FACTS

Carmen Theodora Johannes, a British citizen domiciled in Singapore, died intestate with funds on deposit in a Manila bank. Her husband, B.E. Johannes, was appointed principal administrator of her estate by the court in Singapore. In the Philippines, her brother, Alfred D’Almeida, was appointed ancillary administrator by the Court of First Instance of Manila without objection at the time. Johannes later came to Manila and petitioned the lower court to remove D’Almeida and appoint him (Johannes) as ancillary administrator instead, claiming that as the surviving husband and sole heir under British law, he was entitled to the appointment. The lower court denied his petition. Johannes then filed this original petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the lower court’s order and have himself substituted as ancillary administrator.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion in refusing to remove the incumbent ancillary administrator (Alfred D’Almeida) and appoint the foreign principal administrator (B.E. Johannes) in his stead.

RULING

No. The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that while, as a matter of comity and everything else being equal, the foreign domiciliary administrator might have been entitled to appointment in the first instance, this is a matter of judicial discretion. In this case, the ancillary administrator was duly appointed by a court with primary and original jurisdiction, and no objection was made at the time of his appointment. The subsequent petition for removal and substitution was, in effect, an attempt to oust a properly appointed administrator. The Court distinguished between the authority to appoint and the authority to remove. The removal of an administrator already discharging his duties requires cause, and the mere right of the foreign administrator to seek appointment initially does not constitute a continuous right to displace a duly appointed incumbent. The Court also noted that the real dispute appeared to be over the distribution of the estate (whether the husband alone or the siblings inherit), which is a question of ownership, not administration, and the expenses for litigating that issue should not be charged to the estate.