CASE # 103

G.R. No. 193161 August 22, 2011

DIOSDADO S. MANUNGAS, Petitioner, vs.
MARGARITA AVILA LORETO and FLORENCIA
AVILAARRE!O, Respondents.
FACTS"

Engracia Manungas was the wife of Florentino
Manungas. They had no children. They adopted
Samuel David vila !vila" on #$%&$%'(#. Florentino
Manungas died intestate on )$&'$%'**,
while vila predeceased his adoptive mother.
vila was survived +y his wife Sarah +arte ,da. de
Manungas.
Engracia Manungas filed a Motion for Partition of
Estate on -$-%$%'#. in the intestate estate
proceedings of Florentino Manungas !she was the
administratri/". S#$ st%t$& t#%t t#$'$ %'$ (o ot#$'
)$g%) %(& *o+,u)so'- #$.'s o/ F)o'$(t.(o
M%(u(g%s $0*$,t /o' #$'s$)/, A1.)% %(& % R%+o(
M%(u(g%s 2#o+ s#$ %*3(o2)$&g$& %s t#$
(%tu'%) so( o/ F)o'$(t.(o M%(u(g%s.
vila0s widow e/ecuted a 1aiver of Rights and
Participation !%.$&'$%'#." renouncing her rights over
the separate property of her hus+and in favor of
Engracia Manungas.
Decree of Final Distri+ution was issued distri+uting
the properties to Engracia Manungas and Ramon
Manungas, the surviving heirs.
The RT2 appointed Parre3o !niece of Engracia", as
the 4udicial 5uardian of the properties and person of
her incompetent aunt.
Engracia, through Parre3o, filed a 2ivil 2ase against
the spouses Diosdado Salinas Manungas and
Milagros Pacifico for illegal detainer and damages
with the MT2 in Pana+o 2ity.
- Defense of the spouses6 Diosdado is the
illegitimate son of Florentino Manungas
- MT2 issued a summary 7udgment in favor of
Engracia, ordering the spouses to vacate the
premises and to restore possession to Engracia.
The Decision was appealed, +ut the RT2
affirmed the MT20s decision and such +ecame
final on pril &., %''#.
Thereafter, Diosdado instituted a petition for the
issuance of letters of administration o1$' t#$ Est%t$
o/ E(g'%*.% M%(u(g%s in his favor +efore the RT2.
8e alleged that he, +eing an illegitimate son of
Florentino Manungas, is %( #$.' o/ E(g'%*.%
M%(u(g%s.
The petition was opposed +y 9oreto and Parre3o
alleging that he was not an heir of Engracia and that
he was in fact a &$4to' o/ t#$ $st%t$ #%1.(g 4$$(
/ou(& ).%4)$ to E(g'%*.% M%(u(g%s /o' #
155,000 4- 1.'tu$ o/ t#$ MTC D$*.s.o(.
The RT2 appointed Parre3o as the administrator of
the Estate of Manungas. Su+se:uently, Diosdado
filed a MR with a Prayer for TRP and P;, arguing that
Parre3o0s appointment as special administrator of
the Estate of Manungas was +y virtue of her +eing
the 7udicial guardian of the latter +ut which relation
ceased upon Engracia0s death and Parre3o is a
mere niece, a collateral relative, of Engracia, while
he is the illegitimate son of Florentino Manungas.
<n %%$=$&..&, the RT2 reversed itself and revo>ed
the appointment of Parre3o while appointing
Diosdado as the Special dministrator on the ground
that, the presence of illegitimate children precludes
succession +y collateral relatives to his estate?
Diosdado Manungas, +eing the illegitimate son of
Florentino Manungas inherits the latter0s property +y
operation of law.
Parre3o and 9oreto filed a Petition for 2ertiorari
under Rule () with the 2. The 2 found that that
the RT2 acted with grave a+use of discretion and
reinstated Parre3o as the special administrator of
the estate.
ISSUE" 1hether or not the court committed an error of
annulling the appointment of Diosdado Manugas as
7udicial administrator of the estate of Engracia Manugas@

RULING"
ACOMMENT6 Diosdado alleges that the respondents
have made use of the wrong remedy, having filed a
P2 under Rule () when the respondents should
have appealed the RT2 <rder to the 2 through a
PR2 under Rule =). 8owever, the RT2 <rder
!%%$=$&..&" is not a final order, +ut an interlocutory
order.B
The AOINTMENT OF A SECIAL
ADMINISTRATOR IS AN INTERLOCUTOR6 OR
RELIMINAR6 ORDER to the main case for the
grant of letters of administration in a testate or
intestate proceeding.
The appointment or removal of special
administrators, +eing discretionary, is thus
interlocutory and may +e assailed through a petition
for certiorari under Rule () of the Rules of 2ourt.
1hile respondent failed to move for the
reconsideration of the Covem+er =, &..& <rder of
the RT2, a petition for certiorari may still prosper.
The fact that Diosdado is an heir to the estate of
Florentino Manungas does not mean that he is
entitled or even :ualified to +ecome the special
administrator of the Estate of Manungas.
The appointment of a special administrator lies
within the discretion of the court.
The prior or preferred right of certain persons to the
appointment of administrator under D%, Rule #%, as
well as the provisions as to causes for removal of an
e/ecutor or administrator under D&, Rule #-, do not
apply to the selection or removal of SPE2;9
DM;C;STRT<R .
The pro+ate court may appoint or remove special
administrators +ased on grounds other than those
enumerated in the Rules at its discretion, there is no
need to first pass upon and resolve the issues of
fitness or unfitness and the application of the order
of preference under D( of Rule *#.
8owever, while the trial court has the discretion to
appoint anyone as a special administrator, such
discretion must +e e/ercised with reason, guided +y
the directives of e:uity, 7ustice and legal principles.
The role of a special administrator is to preserve the
estate until a regular administrator is appointed. s
stated in 72, Ru)$ 80 9 Powers and duties of
special administrator. E Such special
administrator shall ta>e possession and charge of
the goods, chattels, rights, credits, and estate of the
deceased and preserve the same for the e/ecutors
or administrator afterwards appointed, and for that
purpose may commence and maintain suits as
administrator. 8e may sell only such perisha+le and
other property as the court orders sold. special
administrator shall not +e lia+le to pay any de+ts of
the deceased unless so ordered +y the court.
5iven this duty, it would +e prudent and reasona+le
to appoint someone interested in preserving the
estate for its eventual distri+ution to the heirs. Such
choice would ensure that such person would not
e/pose the estate to losses that would effectively
diminish his or her share. 1hile the court may use
its discretion and depart from such reasoning, still,
there is no logical reason to appoint a person who is
a de+tor of the estate and otherwise a stranger to
the deceased. To do so would +e tantamount to
grave a+use of discretion.
The su+7ect of the intestate proceedings is the estate
of Engracia Manungas.
The estate of Florentino Manungas was already the
su+7ect of intestate proceedings that have long +een
terminated with the proceeds distri+uted to the heirs
with the issuance of a Decree of Final Distri+ution.
1ith the termination of the intestate estate
proceedings of Florentino Manungas, D.os&%&o, %s
%( .))$g.t.+%t$ #$.' o/ F)o'$(t.(o, .s st.)) (ot %(
#$.' o/ E(g'%*.% M%(u(g%s %(& .s (ot $(t.t)$& to
'$*$.1$ %(- ,%'t o/ t#$ Est%t$ o/ M%(u(g%s.
Diosdado is a de+tor of the estate and would have
no interest in preserving its value. There is no
reason to appoint him as its special
administrator. The trial court acted with grave a+use
of discretion in appointing Diosdado as special
administrator of the Estate of Manungas. The 2
correctly set aside the Covem+er =, &..& <rder of
the RT2.