G.R. No. L-10392. June 28, 1957.
CIRIACO P. GARCIA, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE P. FLORES in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Albay, JUAN GARCIA, and BALDOMERA GARCIA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Martin Garcia died intestate in 1904, leaving his widow Hilaria and six children as heirs. In 1912, the heirs executed an extrajudicial partition of his properties. In 1949, one heir, Paula Garcia, filed Civil Case No. 38 for partition of the same estate against her co-heirs, including her brother Ciriaco P. Garcia (petitioner). In 1952, the plaintiffs moved for an administrator or receiver, which the trial court denied in 1953. In 1954, petitioner Ciriaco, a defendant, filed a motion for a bill of particulars against his co-defendants and a subsequent motion for the appointment of an administrator. The court granted the latter ex parte, appointing Melencio O. Orbase. The co-defendant respondents moved to set aside both orders. The trial court, in 1954 and 1955, issued orders reconsidering and setting aside its prior orders appointing the administrator and granting the bill of particulars, and also denied Ciriaco’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Ciriaco filed the present petition for certiorari and mandamus to annul those orders and compel the judge to allow the administrator to resume duties, strike certain pleadings, and render judgment on the pleadings.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in revoking its order appointing a special administrator.
2. Whether the trial court erred in setting aside its order granting the motion for a bill of particulars filed by a co-defendant.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

RULING

1. The trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in revoking the appointment. An order appointing a special administrator or receiver is interlocutory, not final. The court retains control over such an appointment and may modify, rescind, or revoke it on sufficient grounds at any time before final judgment. Such an order is not appealable. Therefore, the respondent judge had both jurisdiction and authority to revoke the appointment of Orbase.
2. The trial court did not err in setting aside the order for a bill of particulars. A defendant, like petitioner Ciriaco, lacks the legal personality to require his co-defendants to make more particular the allegations in their answers. The proper procedure in such a case is for a defendant to file a cross-claim if he seeks relief against a co-defendant.
3. The trial court correctly denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Judgment on the pleadings was not proper because the answers filed by the defendants tendered issues and specifically denied material allegations of the complaint (e.g., the status of certain heirs and the existence of a prior partition and trusteeship).
The petition for certiorari and mandamus is denied.