opposition geluz

8/11/2019 Opposition Geluz

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/opposition-geluz 1/3

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESFOURTH JUDICIAL REGIONREGIONAL TRIAL COURT

BRANCH 22

IN THE MATTER OF PETITIONFOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THEINTESTATE ESTATE OF THELATE SPOUSES ROMEO GELUZ SR. AND EMILIANA JAMIR- GELUZ

MA. LOURDES PALACIOS-GELUZ and PAOLO LUISMIGUEL P. GELUZ,

Petitioners,SP Proc. Case No. 229-05

-versus-

ROMEO J. GELUZ andERMILINA J. GELUZ,

Respondents,x------------------------------------------x

OPPOSITION(MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO THE OMNIBUS ORDER)

COMES NOW, Plaintiff PAOLO LUIS MIGUEL P. GELUZ by counsel and unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully avers that:

1. The petitioner is more than qualified to manage and administer the estate

because of his proven competency, integrity and efficiency.

2. There is no need for the appointment of co- administrator for the reason that

the petitioner is more than competent to handle the complexities of the estate

being a graduate of B.S. Information System in De La Salle- College of Saint

Benilde, a Career Professional Eligibility passer and an employee of the Land

Bank of the Philippines.

3. The appointment of co- administrator would only cause conflict and hamper

to the decision making of the administrator that would only lead to the delay

in the distribution of the estate of the deceased.



4. The appointment of co- administrator would only lead to unnecessary

expenses on the part of the estate due to the fact that the same is entitled to

compensation under Section 7, Rule 85;

“ Section 7. What expenses and fees allowed executor or administrator. Not tocharge for services as attorney. Compensation provided by will controls unlessrenounced. — An executor or administrator shall be allowed the necessaryexpenses the care, management, and settlement of the estate, and for hisservices, four pesos per day for the time actually and necessarily employed, or acommission upon the value of so much of the estate as comes into his possessionand is finally disposed of by him in the payment of debts, expenses, legacies, ordistributive shares, or by delivery to heirs or devisees, of two per centum of the first five thousand pesos of such value, one per centum of so much of such valueas exceeds five thousand pesos and does not exceed thirty thousand pesos, one-half per centum of so much of such value as exceed one hundred thousand pesos.

But in any special case, where the estate is large, and the settlement has beenattended with great difficulty, and has required a high degree of capacity on the part of the executor or administrator, a greater sum may be allowed. Ifobjection to the fees allowed be taken, the allowance may be re-examined onappeal.

If there are two or more executors or administrators, thecompensation shall be apportioned among them by the courtaccording to the services actually rendered by them respectively.

When the executors or administrator is an attorney, he shall not charge against

the estate any professional fees for legal services rendered by him. When thedeceased by will makes some other provision for the compensation of hisexecutor, that provision shall be a full satisfaction for his services unless by awritten instrument filed in the court he renounces all claims to thecompensation provided by the will.”

5. Section 6 Rule 79 of the Rules of Court states that;

Section 6. “ Letters of administration may be granted to any qualified

applicant, though appears that there are other competent persons having

better right to administration, if such persons fail to appear when

notified and claim the issuance of letters to themselves.

6. The respondents have failed to file the Motion for appointment as

administrator, rendering the Honorable Court justified in ordering the

plaintiff as the administrator of the remaining estate of his deceased

grandparents Romeo Geluz, Sr. and Emiliana Jamir- Geluz.



7. The respondents have failed to prove that the plaintiff is incompetent to serve

as administrator based on Section 1 of Rule 78;

“ Section 1. No person is competent to serve as executor or administrator

who:

a. Is a minorb. Is not a resident of the Philippines; andc. Is in the opinion of the court unfit to execute the duties of trust by

reason of drunkenness, improvidence, or want of understanding orintegrity, or by reason of conviction of an offense involving moralturpitude.”

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing circumstances, it is respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court, that the Motion for Reconsideration be denied due to lack of legal basis in the opposition to the appointment of the petitioner as administrator of theestate of the deceased.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for.

Imus, Cavite ________

MIRANDA, ANASTACIO, & LOTERTELAW OFFICESPenthouse B, Venture BuildingPrime Street, Madrigal Business Park

Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa City

By:

VITTO DUART C. LOTERTE

Roll No. 59362PTR No. 10621569J/Las Piñas/1-7-2014IBP OR No. 932631/PPLM/1-8-2014MCLE No. IV-001-7246/4-23-2013

opposition geluz

Documents