G.R. No. L-4783; May 26, 1952
Julita Relucio, petitioner, vs. Hon. Ramon R. San Jose, etc., respondents.

FACTS

In Special Proceeding No. 70588 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, petitioner Julita Relucio was appointed administratrix of the testate estate of Felipe Relucio, Sr., qualifying on August 24, 1925. On June 27, 1950, Lorenzo, Rolando, and Leticia Relucio filed a petition for her substitution. The court issued an order on January 15, 1951, appointing Rolando Relucio as administrator in substitution of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an opposition and, after failing to obtain reconsideration, filed a notice of appeal. Before the appeal could be perfected, Rolando Relucio moved for immediate execution of the substitution order. The court’s order of March 20, 1951, merely referenced the letters of administration issued to Rolando Relucio and did not rule on the motion for immediate execution. On April 3, 1951, Rolando Relucio filed a motion to declare the petitioner in contempt for failing to deliver estate papers and properties after demand. In its order dated April 10, 1951, the Court of First Instance of Manila denied the contempt motion and appointed the Equitable Banking Corporation as special administrator pending the petitioner’s appeal from the January 15, 1951 order. The court ruled that the appeal suspended Rolando Relucio’s appointment but justified the special administrator appointment by reasoning that a removed administrator could nullify removal by appealing. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting the present petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in appointing a special administrator (Equitable Banking Corporation) pending the petitioner’s appeal from the order substituting her as administratrix.

RULING

Yes. The petition is granted. The order of April 10, 1951, appointing the Equitable Banking Corporation as special administrator is set aside. The Court held that the cases in which a special administrator may be appointed are specifically enumerated in Section 1 of Rule 81 (delay in granting letters due to an appeal from allowance/disallowance of a will or other cause) and Section 8 of Rule 87 (when the executor/administrator has a claim against the estate). The present case does not fall under either provision. Since the respondent Judge did not order the immediate execution of the substitution order (January 15, 1951), the petitioner had the right to continue as administratrix pending her appeal. If immediate execution had been decreed, Rolando Relucio would be the administrator pending appeal. Consequently, there was a regular administrator in either scenario, and the appointment of a special administrator was without legal basis and in excess of jurisdiction.