G.R. No. 193161 ; August 22, 2011
DIOSDADO S. MANUNGAS, Petitioner, vs. MARGARITA AVILA LORETO and FLORENCIA AVILA PARREÑO, Respondents.

FACTS

Engracia Manungas, wife of Florentino Manungas, died without children. They had adopted Samuel David Avila, who predeceased Engracia. Florentino died earlier, and in his intestate proceedings, Engracia was the administratrix. She acknowledged Ramon Manungas as Florentino’s natural son. The estate was distributed to Engracia and Ramon. Prior to her death, the RTC appointed respondent Florencia Avila Parreño, Engracia’s niece, as Judicial Guardian of Engracia’s person and properties. Engracia, through Parreño, filed an illegal detainer case against petitioner Diosdado Salinas Manungas and his wife. Diosdado claimed to be Florentino’s illegitimate son, but the MTC ruled against them, a decision which became final. After Engracia’s death, Diosdado filed a petition for letters of administration over her estate, claiming to be an heir as Florentino’s illegitimate son. Respondents Margarita Avila Loreto and Parreño opposed, alleging Diosdado was not an heir, was incompetent, and was a debtor to the estate. On May 15, 2002, the RTC appointed Parreño as special administrator. Diosdado filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing Parreño’s guardianship ceased upon death, that she had been fined for failing to render an accounting, and that he, as an alleged illegitimate son, had a better right. On November 4, 2002, the RTC reversed itself, revoked Parreño’s appointment, and appointed Diosdado as special administrator. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The CA granted the petition, declared the November 4, 2002 RTC Order null and void for grave abuse of discretion, and reinstated Parreño as special administrator. Diosdado’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to the petition for certiorari under Rule 65, considering Diosdado’s argument that the RTC’s November 4, 2002 Order was a final order and the proper remedy was an appeal under Rule 45.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave error in annulling the appointment of Diosdado as special administrator and reinstating Parreño.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution.
1. The RTC Order dated November 4, 2002, which revoked the appointment of one special administrator and appointed another, is an interlocutory order. It did not finally dispose of the main case for the grant of letters of administration. Following jurisprudence, the appointment or removal of a special administrator is a discretionary, interlocutory act. As an interlocutory order, it cannot be appealed via a petition for review under Rule 45. The proper remedy to assail it is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, the CA correctly took cognizance of the petition under Rule 65.
2. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave error. The RTC, in reversing its own appointment within a short period and based on Diosdado’s motion for reconsideration, acted with grave abuse of discretion. The grounds raised by Diosdado (cessation of guardianship upon death, previous fine for failure to account, and his claim of being an illegitimate son) did not warrant the revocation of Parreño’s appointment and his own appointment. The determination of heirship is a separate matter that should be ventilated in the intestate proceedings. Parreño, as the former judicial guardian familiar with the estate, was a suitable choice. The RTC’s sudden reversal, without clear and compelling reasons, was capricious and whimsical. Consequently, the CA correctly nullified the November 4, 2002 Order, reinstated the May 15, 2002 Order, and reinstated Florencia Avila Parreño as the special administrator of the estate of Engracia Manungas.