ArticuLaw Primo
LSPU-LAW STAR CLASS
G.R. No. L-4783, May 26, 1952
JULITA RELUCIO vs.HON. RAMON R. SAN JOSE
Facts:
Julita Relucio was appointed administratrix of the testate estate of Felipe Relucio, Sr on Aug 24, 1925.
Lorenzo, Rolando and Letecia Relucio filed opposition on June 27, 1950 to the CFI (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila.
Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila issued order on Jan 15, 1951 appointing Rolando Relucio as administrator in substitution to petitioner, Julita Relucio.
Rolando Relucio filed to obtain a reconsideration then filed notice of appeal.
Before appeal could be perfected, Rolando Relucio moved for immediate execution of the order appointing him as administrator.
In the order of March 20, 1951 court merely made reference to the letters of administration issued in favor of Rolando Relucio and did not pass on the motion for immediate execution. On April 30, 1951 Rolando filed motion praying that petitioner , Julita Relucio, be declared in contempt for failing to deliver to him after demand all papers, documents, titles and properties of the estate under her administration.
CFI (now Regional Trial Court) denied motion for contempt but appointed Equitable Bank Corporation as administrator. The court ruled that appeal suspended the appointment of the Special Administrator but in the same breath it justified the appointment of special administrator by arguing that if the petitioner has to remain as administratrix during the pendency of her appeal, "a removed administrator may easily nullify such removal by interposing an appeal."
Issue:
Whether or not a court may legally appoint Special Administrator even if there exist a regular administrator.
Held:
Pending Julita's appeal from the order of January 15, 1951, the petitioner had the right to act as administratrix. If the respondent Judge had decreed the immediate execution of the order of January 15, 1951, Rolando Relucio would then be the administrator pending petitioner's appeal. Consequently, the respondent Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in appointing the respondent Equitable Banking Corporation as special administrator.
Wherefore, the petition is hereby granted and the order of the respondent Judge of April 10, 1951, appointing the Equitable Banking Corporation as special Administrator is set aside, without costs.