Matias v. Hon. Gonzales, et. al.
(June 29, 1957) Respondents:
FACTS:
● May 1952, Aurea Matias initiated special proceeding with petition for probate of document
purporting to be the last will of her aunt, Gabina, Raquiel, who died single on May 8, at age 92.
The heir to entire estate- except properties bequeathed to other nieces and nephews- is
Aurea who is also named executrix.
● Basilia Salud, first cousin of deceased, opposed probate. Probate court sustained opposition
and denied probate. So Aurea went to SC, where it is now pending decision. Meanwhile, on
Feb 1956, Basilia Salud moved for dismissal of Horacio Rodriquez as special administrator of
estate and the appointment of Ramon Plata. Rodriguez, although notified of hearing, did not
appear but instead filed an urgent motion for additional time to answer charged against him
by Basilia. Motion was not granted and Basilia introduced evidence against him, and Judge
eventually found him guilty of abuse of authority and gross negligence so he was relieved of
his post as special administrator. Basilia, Victorina Salud (niece of Basilia, ordered to help
Basilia and be her adviser, as she is very old and disabled) and Ramon Plata were appointed
administrators.
● Aurea Matias asked order be set aside and that she be appointed co-administratrix with
Horacio Rodriguez upon the ground that Basilia is over 80, totally blind and physically
incapacitated to perform duties, and said movant is the universal heiress of deceased and the
person appointed as executrix in her alleged last will. Motion was denied.
● March 17, 1956, Basilia tendered her resignation as special administratrix by reason of her
old age and disability, and recommending Victorina Salud in her place. Aurea sought
reconsideration of order confirming the 3 administrators and expressed conformity with
resignation of Basilia. However, she objected to appointment of Victorina on account of her
antagonism towards Aurea. Victorina was the principla and most interested witness for
opposition to probate of alleged last will. Aurea proposed administration be entrusted to
PNB, Monte de Piedad, BPI or similar institutions, should the court be reluctant to appoint
her.
● Soon after, Plata and Victorina requested authority to collect rent due to estate and produce,
as well as permission to sell palay belonging to estate. Judge granted both.
● Aurea Salid instituted present action against Judge, Victorina and Plata for annulling orders of
judge on the ground that they were issued with grave abuse of discretion.
Petitioner (in asserting judge committed Grave abuse of discretion):
1. Aurea should have preference in choice of special administratrix of decedent, as she is
universal heiress named in alleged will, that is, until final disallowance of will, which as of yet,
has not happened. Therefore, she has a special interest in estate, which must be protected by
giving representation thereto in management of estate.
2. Apart from denying her representation in management, it was given to persons partial to her
main opponent, Basilia (Victorina is her niece and Plata is her lawyer’s friend).
3. Basilia was made special administratrix despite obvious unfitness, due to old age and
blindness, with said disability borne by the fact of her resignation upon such ground.
4. Rules of Court do not permit appointment of more than 1 special administrator.
5. Horacio Rodriguez was removed without giving petitioner a chance to be heard.
6. Plata and Victorina were granted permission to collect rent and sell palays without notice to
her.
1. No Grave abuse of discretion in actuations of judge.
2. Aurea cannot claim special interest in estate because probate was denied.
3. Horacio was notified of proceedings for his removal.
4. Victorina and Plata did nothing to warrant their removal.
Issues: WON judge committed abuse of discretion in appointing Victorina and Plata and issuing
the orders?
Held: Yes. On the following grounds:
1. Although Horatio Rodriguez had notice of hearing of motion for his removal, he received
copy of motion the date after the set date for hearing.
2. Aurea had no notice of hearing for removal of Horacio Rodriguez and Basilia’s motion to
appoint Plata. She also had no notice that her main opponent, Basilia and Victorina would be
considered for management of estate. She therefore had no opportunity to object.
3. Order appointing Basilia was issued with evident knowledge of her physical disability,
Judge having said that she “should be assisted and advised by her niece Victorina” and that the
latter “shall always act as aide, interpreter and adviser of Basilia Salud”. Appointment of
Basilia as special administrator, when she was obviously unfit for said office due to her
advanced age of 80 and blindness, amounts to grave abuse of discretion on the part of
respondent judge.
4. Judge in effect appointed 3 special administrators of estate, Basilia, Victorina and Plata.
5. Soon after institution of estate proceedings, issue arose between Aurea and Basilia regarding
the person to be appointed special administrator. Former proposed Horacio Rodriguez while
the latter recommented Victorina. The then court, presided over by Judge Bernabe, appointed
Rodriguzed because unlike Victorina who was employed and lived in Manila, Rodriguez was a
lawyer, former public prosecutor and mayor and a resident of Cavite. Judge Gonzales’ order
was therefore a reversal of Judge Bernabe’s order.
6. Although probate was denied by respondent Judge, this is not yet final as it is pending appeal.
Aurea, therefore, still has a special interest to protect during pendency of her appeal.
7. As there are at least 2 factions among heirs and lower court deemed it best to appoint
more than 1 special administrator, it is only just that both factions be represented in the
management of the estate.
The rule, laid down in Roxas vs. Pecson (supra), to the effect that "only one special administrator
may be appointed to administrator temporarily" the estate of the deceased, must be considered
in the light of the facts obtaining in said case. The lower court appointed therein one special
administrator for some properties forming part of said estate, and a special administratrix for
other properties thereof. Thus, there were two (2) separate and independent special
administrators. In the case at bar there is only one (1) special administration, the powers of
which shall be exercised jointly by two special co-administrators. In short, the Roxas case is not
squarely in point. Moreover, there are authorities in support of the power of courts to appoint
several special co-administrators.
Disposition: Orders are annulled and set aside. Lower court should re-hear matter of removal
of Horacio Rodriguez and appointment of special administrators, after due notice to parties.
Costs against Victorina and Plata.