Advincula vs.

Teodoro
Emilio Advincula was appointed special administrator, then later regular administrator of his deceased wifes estate.
After he qualified as administrator, his brothers-in-law submitted a document purporting to be the deceasedd will.
Emilio opposed the probate of the will on the ground that the signature was not his wifes and even if it was, the
same was procured by fraud. One of the brothers-in-law, Enrique Lacson, prayed that he (Enrique) be appointed
administrator in lieu of Emilio. During the hearing, it was alleged that Emilio was incompetent, incapable and
unsuitable to act as administrator because Emilio is foreign to the estate. The court ruled in favor of Enriques
motion. Emilio filed an MR but the same was denied so he instituted the present action for certiorari to annul the
lower courts order.
ISSUE: WON the lower court erred in granting Lacsons motion
HELD: Yes. The appointment of Lacson as administrator in lieu of Advincula is predicated on the fact that Lacson
was named executor of the deceasedd will. This provision, however cannot be enforced until the said will is
admitted to probate.
The discovery of a will of the deceased does not ipso facto nullify letters of administration already issued or even
authorize the revocation thereof until the alleged will is proved and allowed by the court.
Furthermore, the lower court appears to have followed the argument of the respondents that Emilio, being foreign to
the deceaseds estate is incapable of being an administrator. This argument is untenable because from the viewpoint
of logic and experience, a stranger may be competent, capable and fit to be administrator of the estate in the same
way that a family member can be incompetent, incapable and unfit to do so. Besides, Emilio as the surviving spouse
if a forced heir of the deceased. He is entitled to of all property apart from his share of the other half thereof as
heir of the deceased since all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership-