Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

MANUNGAS v MARGARITA LORETO & FLORENCIA AVILA PARREO

G.R. 193161; August 22, 2011

Facts:

Spouses Florentino and Engracia Manungas, childless, adopted Samuel David Avila in 1968. Florentino
died intestate in 1977 while Avila predeceased her mother and was survived by his wife Sarah Abarte
Vda. de Manungas. Engracia then filed a Motion for Partition of Estate in the intestate estate
proceedings of Florentino, of which she was the administratrix, declaring that there are no other legal
and compulsory heirs except for herself, Avila and a Ramon Manungas, natural son of Florentino. Avilas
widow Sarah renounced her rights over the property of her husband in favor of Engracia. Thus, the
properties of the estate were distributed to Engracia and Ramon.

In 1995, RTC Panabo City appointed Florencia Parreo, niece of Engracia, as the Judicial Guardian of the
properties and person of her incompetent aunt. Through Parreo, Engracia filed a case of illegal detainer
and damages against Spouses Diosdado Manungas and Milagros Pacifico before the MTC. Spouses
Salinas however claimed that Diosdado is the illegitimate son of Florentino. However, their answer was
filed beyond the reglementary period; hence, MTC issued a summary judgment in favor of Engracia. RTC
affirmed MTCs decision. They then appealed to the Supreme Court but the petition was also denied by
the High court for having been filed out of time.

Diosdado then filed a petition for issuance of letters of administration over the Estate of Engracia
Manungas in his favor alleging that he is an heir of Engracia, for being an illegitimate son of Florentino.
The petition was opposed by Margarita Avila Loreto and Florencia Parreo averring that Diosdado is not
qualified to be an administrator as he was not an heir or a creditor of Engracia or her estate. In fact, he
was a debtor of the estate. RTC then appointed Parreo as the administrator. But upon motion for
reconsideration filed by Diosdado, RTC, in an order dated November 4, 2002, reversed itself and ordered
the revocation of its earlier appointment of Parreo and instead appointed Diosdado as the Special
administrator. Parreo and Loreto appealed the ruling of the RTC to the CA. CA then reinstated Parreo.
Diosdado, however, contested that Parreo should have appealed the RTC order to the CA through a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a .

Issue:
Whether or not the RTC order dated November 4, 2002 is an interlocutory order.

Ruling:
YES, the RTC order is clearly an interlocutory order. The appointment of a special administrator is an
interlocutory or preliminary order to the main case for the grant of letters of administration in a testate
or intestate proceeding. As such, the order cannot be the subject of an appeal under Rule 45. The
proper remedy is the filing of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 which was what the respondents
availed of. Generally, a motion for reconsideration is required before a decision may appealed thru a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65. However, a petition for certiorari will lie without prior filing of a
motion for reconsideration where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is
involved. The instant case is clearly an exception to the general rule since the issues raised by
respondents in appealing the order dated November 4, 2002 are only questions of law. Hence, there is
no need for motion for reconsideration.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi