G.R. No. L-10907. June 29, 1957.
AUREA MATIAS, petitioner, vs. HON. PRIMITIVO L. GONZALEZ, ETC., ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Aurea Matias initiated Special Proceedings No. 5213 for the probate of the last will and testament of her aunt, Gabina Raquel, who died single. The will named Aurea Matias as the universal heiress and executrix. Basilia Salud, a first cousin of the deceased, opposed the probate. The court, presided by respondent Judge Primitivo L. Gonzalez, denied the petition for probate in an order dated February 8, 1956. Aurea Matias appealed this denial (G.R. No. L-10751), and the appeal was pending at the time of this certiorari proceeding.
Meanwhile, on February 17, 1956, Basilia Salud moved to dismiss the special administrator, Horacio Rodriguez, and appoint Ramon Plata in his stead. After a hearing on February 27, 1956, where Rodriguez did not appear despite notice, respondent Judge found Rodriguez guilty of abuse of authority and gross negligence. The court relieved Rodriguez and appointed Basilia Salud as special administratrix, to be assisted by her niece Victorina Salud as “aide, interpreter and adviser,” and further appointed Ramon Plata as co-administrator.
Aurea Matias moved to set aside this order, citing Basilia Salud’s old age (over 80) and blindness, and asserting her own preference as universal heiress and appointed executrix. The court denied her motion on March 10, 1956. Basilia Salud later resigned due to physical disability and recommended Victorina Salud as her replacement. Aurea Matias objected to Victorina Salud’s appointment due to her antagonism as the principal witness for the opposition, and alternatively proposed a bank as administrator. Her motion for reconsideration was denied.
Subsequently, respondents Ramon Plata and Victorina Salud were granted authority to collect rents and produce from the estate and to sell the deceased’s palay. Aurea Matias filed the present certiorari action to annul these orders, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the orders: (1) removing Horacio Rodriguez as special administrator; (2) appointing Basilia Salud, Victorina Salud, and Ramon Plata to manage the estate; and (3) granting said appointees authority to collect and sell estate properties without proper notice to the petitioner.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found that respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The orders dated February 27, 1956, March 10, 1956, and June 23, 1956 (and related orders) were annulled and set aside.
The Court held:
1. Petitioner Aurea Matias was denied due process. She received the motion for Rodriguez’s removal after its scheduled hearing and had no notice that Basilia Salud and Victorina Salud would be considered for appointment, thus depriving her of an opportunity to object.
2. The appointment of Basilia Salud was made with evident knowledge of her physical incapacity (blindness and old age), as shown by the order requiring Victorina Salud to assist and advise her.
3. The order effectively appointed three special administrators (Basilia Salud, Victorina Salud, and Ramon Plata), which contravened the general rule, though the Court acknowledged that appointing several co-administrators could be permissible under certain circumstances.
4. The removal of Horacio Rodriguez and the appointment of Victorina Salud reversed a prior order by another judge (Judge Bernabe, dated August 11, 1952) which had appointed Rodriguez over Victorina Salud due to his residency in Cavite.
5. Pending the final decision on the appeal of the will’s probate, Aurea Matias, as the designated universal heiress and executrix in the contested will, retained a special interest in the estate that deserved protection.
6. Given the existence of two factions among the heirs, justice and equity demanded that both be represented in the estate’s management if more than one administrator was to be appointed.
The Supreme Court ordered the lower court to rehear the matter of the removal of Horacio Rodriguez and the appointment of special administrators after due notice to all parties, in conformity with the views expressed in the decision. Costs were imposed on respondents Victorina Salud and Ramon Plata.