MANUNGAS v. LORETO.docx

MANUNGAS v. LORETO G.R. 193161 Aug. 22, 2011 DOCTRINE:  As the law does not say who shall be appointed as special administrator and the qualifications the appointee must have, the judge or court has discretion in the selection of the person to be appointed, discretion which must be sound, that is, not whimsical or contrary to reason, justice or equity. There is no logical reason to appoint a person who is a debtor of the estate and otherwise a stranger to the deceased. FACTS: 1. This case is a Petiti Petition on for Review Review on ertio ertiorari rari under under Rule Rule !". !". #. $ngracia $ngracia %anugas %anugas was the the wife of &lorentin &lorentino o %anugas. %anugas. They had no children children.. 'nstead, 'nstead, they adopted adopted (amuel (amuel )avid )avid  Avila*Avila+.  Avila*Avila+. . &lorentino &lorentino died intestat intestate e while Avila Avila predeceased predeceased his adoptive adoptive mother. mother. Avila Avila was survived survived by his wife (arah (arah Abarte Abarte -da. )e %anugas. !. $ngracia $ngracia filed filed a %otion for Partitio Partition n of $state in the intesta intestate te estate estate proceedings proceedings of &lorentino &lorentino.. There she stated stated that there were no other legal and compulsory heirs of &lorentino ecept herself, Avila and Ramon %anugas whom she ac/nowledged as the natural son of &lorentino. Avila0s Avila0s widow eecuted a waiver of rights and participation renouncing her rights over the property of her husband in favor of $ngracia. ". onsequently, onsequently, a )ecree of &inal &inal )istribution )istribution was issued in the intestate intestate estate of &lorentino distributing the properties to $ngracia and Ramon. *TA * TAKE KE NOTE NOTE At this point, point, the intestate intestate estate estate proceedings proceedings as regards regards &lorentino &lorentino0s 0s properties were already terminated+ 2. Therea Thereafte fter, r, the RT of Panabo Panabo ity ity appointe appointed d Parre3 Parre3o, o, the niece of $ngracia $ngracia as the 4udici 4udicial al 5uardia 5uardian n of the properties and person of her incompetent aunt. 6. Through Through Parre3o, Parre3o, $ngracia $ngracia insti instituted tuted a civil civil case case against against the (pouse (pouses s )iosdado )iosdado (alinas (alinas %anugas*)i %anugas*)iosdad osdado+ o+ and %ilagros Pacifico for illegal detainer detainer and damages. %T issued a summary judgment in favor of $ngracia due to the failure of )iosdado to file an answer. 7. After After sometime, sometime, )iosdado )iosdado instituted instituted a petition petition for the issuance issuance of letters of administra administration tion over $ngracia $ngracia0s 0s $state $state in his favor before the RT of Tagum. Tagum. 8e alleged that he, being an illegitimate son of &lorentino, is an heir of $ngracia. 9. The petition petition was opposed opposed by %argarita %argarita Avila Avila :oreto*: :oreto*:oreto oreto++ and Parre3o alleging alleging that that )iosdado )iosdado was incompeten incompetentt as an administrator a. 8e was was not not a %anu %anuga gas s b. 8e was a debtor of the estate 1;. RT?@ the A erred in denying denying petitioner0s petitioner0s %R %R which grossly grossly violat violated ed the rule that that once a decision decision or order is final final and eecutor, it becomes immutable and unalterable. @.

.

>?@ the A erred erred when it ruled to annul annul the appointment appointment of )iosdado )iosdado herein herein petitioner petitioner as judicial judicial administ administrator rator and reinstating the appointment of Parre3o. @. *Relevant to our topic+ HELD:

B

1s !"# 2"# $ssu%&'us $" (!s% 'us$(% S$"g) !s*s+ RTC order is an interlocutory order and as such certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy. The first first two issues issues raised raised by )iosdad )iosdado o revolve revolve around around the issue issue of whether whether the RT RT is an interloc interlocutory utory order. order. 8e alleged that certiorari cannot be the substitute for a lost appeal. &urther alleging that Parre3o should have appealed the RT order to the A through Rule !" and having failed to file within the reglementary period, the order cannot be the subject of review by this court.

B 

The ourt ourt has consider considered ed an appointmen appointmentt of a special special administr administrator ator as an interl interlocut ocutory ory or prelimina preliminary ry order to the the main case for the grant of letters of administration in a testate or intestate proceeding Ocampo v. Ocampo CThe appointment or removal of special administrators, being discretionary, is thus interlocutory and may be assailed through a petition for certiorari under Rule 2" of the Rules of ourt.D



S%($ %($-" -" 1&(+ 1&(+ - Ru/ Ru/% 1 1 C(ec C(ecti tion on 1. Subject of appeal .  An appeal may be ta/en from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable. @o appeal may be ta/en from  *c+ *c+

An int inter erlo locu cuto tory ry orde orderE rE



'n all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 2".D B F F F

&urthe &urther, r, there there was was no no neces necessit sity y to to file file for for %R %R 5 %R is requir required ed befo before re appeal appeal via Rule Rule 2". 2". $ *there *there are several several but in in this case case the court court only only cited cited one+ >here >here the issue issue raised raised is one purely purely of law or or where public interest is involved. This This case case is pure purely ly one one of of law law..

B

3# Issu%&RELEANT TO THE TOIC+ The RTC acted with Grave abuse of discretion(CA did not err in reversin RTC!s order" The fact fact that )iosdad )iosdado o is an heir to the estate estate of &loren &lorentin tino o %anungas %anungas does does not mean that that he is entitl entitled ed or even

B 

qualified to become the special administrator of the $state of $ngracia. 4urisprude 4urisprudence nce teaches teaches us that that the appointment appointment of of a special adminis administrato tratorr lies within within the discret discretion ion of the court. court. #eirs of $elinda %ahlia A. Castillo v. &acuata'Gabriel  C't is well settled that the statutory provisions as to the prior or preferred right of certain persons to the appointment of administrator under (ection 1, Rule 71, as well as the statutory provisions as to causes for removal of an eecutor or administrator under section 2" of Act @o. 19;, now (ection #, Rule 7, do not apply to the selection selection or removal removal of special administrat administrator. or.     As )% /!4 #-%s "- s!5 4)- s)!// % !77-$"%# !s s7%($!/ !#8$"$s!- !"# )% u!/$$(!$-"s )% !77-$"%% 8us )!v%, )% u#g% - (-u )!s #$s(%$-" $" )% s%/%($-" - )% 7%s-" - % !77-$"%#, #$s(%$-" 4)$() 8us % s-u"#, )! $s, "- 4)$8s$(!/ - (-"!5 - %!s-", us$(% - %u$5.D %u$5.D



Rei Reitera terate ted d in in Oca Ocam mpo C>hile the RT considered that respondents were the nearest of /in to their deceased parents in their appointment as joint special administrators, this is not a mandatory requirement for the appointment. 't has long been settled that the selection or removal of special administrators is not governed by the rules regarding the selection or removal of regular administrators. The probate court may appoint or remove special administrators based on grounds other than those enumerated in the Rules at its discretion, such that the need to first pass upon and resolve the issues of fitness or unfitness and the application of the order  of preference under (ection 2 of Rule 67, as would be proper in the case of a regular administrator, do not obtain. As /-"g !s )% #$s(%$-" $s %;%($s%# 4$)-u g!v% !us%, !"# $s !s%# -" %!s-", %u$5,  us$(%, !"# /%g!/ /%g!/ 7$"($7/%s, $"%%%"(% 5 )$g)% )$g)% (-us $s u"4!!"%# u"4!!"%#.D .D

B

>hile the the trial court court has the discret discretion ion to appoint appoint anyone anyone as a special special administra administrator tor of the estate, estate, such such discretio discretion n must be eercised with reason, guided by the directives of equity, justice and legal principles. 't may, therefore, not be

remiss remiss to reiterate reiterate that the role of a special special administrator administrator is to preserve the estate estate until a regular regular administ administrator rator is F B F F

B

appointed as stated in (ection # Rule 7; of the Rules of court. T)%% $s "- /-g$(!/ %!s-" - !77-$" ! 7%s-" 4)- $s ! #%- - )% %s!% !"# -)%4$s% ! s!"g% - )% #%(%!s%#. #%(%!s%#. )iosdado )iosdado is a stranger stranger to $ngracia $ngracia while while Parre3o Parre3o is the the latte latter0s r0s relati relative. ve. evidence evidence on record record shows shows that )iosdad )iosdado o is not related related to the the late $ngraci $ngracia a and so he is not not intereste interested d in preserving preserving the latter0s estate Parre3o Parre3o is a former former 4udicial 4udicial guardian guardian of $ngraci $ngracia a when she was was still alive alive and who is also also the niece niece of the latter latter,, is interested in protecting and preserving the estate of her late aunt $ngracia, as by doing so she would reap the benefit of a wise administration of the decedent0s estate 't must must be remembered remembered that that the estate estate of &lorent &lorentino ino %anungas %anungas was already already the the subject subject of intesta intestate te proceeding proceedings s that have have long long been been termin terminate ated d with with the proceeds proceeds distrib distribute uted d to the heirs with the issuance issuance of a )ecree )ecree of &inal &inal )istribut )istribution. ion. >ith the termination termination of the intestate intestate estate estate proceedings proceedings of &lorentino &lorentino %anungas, %anungas, )iosdado, )iosdado, as an illegitimate heir of &lorentino %anungas, is still not an heir of $ngracia %anungas and is not entitled to receive any part of the $state of %anungas.