SP2.

5 Ocampo v Ocampo
Facts: Vicente and Maxima ocampo and Leonardo ocampo left several properties which was
jointly controlled, managed, and administered the estate of their parents
Here petitioner are heirs of Leonardo petitioning for intestate proceedings, However,
when Leonardo died, respondents(heirs of Vicente and maxima ocampo) took possession, control
and management of the properties to the exclusion of petitioners. The petition prayed for the
settlement of the estate and for the appointment of an administrator to apportion, divide, and
award the two estates among the lawful heirs of the decedents.
Renato and Erlinda were appointed as special administrators but refused to give an
inventory of properties as petitioned by herein petitioners until after the court ruled in their
petition for exemption in posting a bond. Meanwhile, petitioners move the court through a
petition in removing the respondents as administrators and proceed to partitioning the estate for
declaring wrong information of value selling price. The RTC ruled in the affirmative and
appointed Melinda as regular administrator conditioned with the posting of P200,000.00 as bond
which the later complied. The respondents appealed in the CA and they received a favorable
decision reversing and setting aside the decision of the RTC.
Issue: Whether the court should have acted with grave abuse of discretion in revoking and
terminating the appointment of Renato and Erlinda as joint special administrators, on account of
their failure to comply with its Order, particularly the posting of the required bond, and to enter
their duties and responsibilities as special administrators and in appointing Melinda as regular
administratrix, subject to the posting of a bond in the amount of P200,000.00.

Ruling: The court ruled that the trial court did not act with grave abuse of discretion in revoking
the appointment of the respondents as special administrators and otherwise in appointing Melinda
as regular administrator opining and ordering that she should instead be appointed as special
administration as according to the rules.
Pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 81, the bond secures the performance of the duties and
obligations of an administrator namely: (1) to administer the estate and pay the debts; (2) to
perform all judicial orders; (3) to account within one (1) year and at any other time when required
by the probate court; and (4) to make an inventory within three (3) months. More specifically, per
Section 4 of the same Rule, the bond is conditioned on the faithful execution of the administration
of the decedents estate requiring the special administrator to (1) make and return a true inventory
of the goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate of the deceased which come to his possession or
knowledge; (2) truly account for such as received by him when required by the court; and (3)
deliver the same to the person appointed as executor or regular administrator, or to such other
person as may be authorized to receive them.
Verily, the administration bond is for the benefit of the creditors and the heirs, as it
compels the administrator, whether regular or special, to perform the trust reposed in, and
discharge the obligations incumbent upon, him. Moreover, the ability to post the bond is in the
nature of a qualification for the office of administration.