G.R. No. 26751, G.R. No. L-26085, G.R. No. L-26106; January 31, 1969
Case Parties:

G.R. No. 26751: JOSE S. MATUTE, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS (Third Division) and MATIAS S. MATUTE, respondents.
G.R. No. L-26085: JOSE S. MATUTE, in his personal capacity and as Judicial Co-Administrator of the Estate of AMADEO MATUTE OLAVE, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE VICENTE P. BULLECER, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch IV, and MARIANO NASSER, respondents.
G.R. No. L-26106: JOSE S. MATUTE AND LUIS S. MATUTE, as Intervenors in their personal capacities in Civil Case No. 4252 of the Court of First Instance of Davao, petitioners, vs. HON. VICENTE P. BULLECER, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch IV; ATTY. PATERNO R. CANLAS, DANIEL RIVERA, SR., PABLO V. DEL ROSARIO and NICANOR D. VERGARA, as Defendants in Civil Case No. 4252, of the Court of First Instance of Davao, respondents.

FACTS

The three consolidated petitions arise from the protracted settlement of the estate of Amadeo Matute Olave, involving intra-fraternal conflict among the heirs.
In G.R. No. 26751, Carlos S. Matute, a brother of petitioner Jose S. Matute and respondent Matias S. Matute, filed a petition in the probate court (Special Proceeding 25876) for the removal of Matias as co-administrator, alleging his failure to render proper accounts and incompetence due to a murder charge. Other heirs joined in seeking Matias’s removal, citing additional grounds like failure to pay property taxes and unauthorized disbursements. After a hearing where evidence was presented, Matias filed a “Motion to Dismiss and/or Demurrer to Evidence.” On January 31, 1966, the probate court (Judge Emigdio Nietes) issued an order removing Matias as co-administrator and appointing Jose S. Matute in his stead. Matias filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. 37039-R) challenging this order. The Court of Appeals gave due course and granted a preliminary injunction. Jose S. Matute then filed the present petition, arguing the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction because the value of the estate exceeded P200,000, a point previously ruled upon by the same court in CA-G.R. 35124-R. Matias countered that the subject matter was merely the right to collect P5,000 monthly rentals from a lease he executed.
In G.R. No. L-26085, Mariano Nasser filed a complaint for specific performance in the Court of First Instance of Davao against the Matute estate administrators, seeking to enforce a lease contract for five haciendas executed by Matias S. Matute as co-administrator. Jose S. Matute, as a co-administrator, was declared in default for failure to file a timely answer. A judgment by default was rendered against him, ordering the estate to deliver the haciendas to Nasser. Jose S. Matute filed this petition for certiorari, arguing the trial court (Judge Vicente P. Bullecer) acted without jurisdiction because the lease contract, being an act of administration, required probate court approval, and the case involved title to property under administration which should be litigated in the probate court.
In G.R. No. L-26106, Jose S. Matute and Luis S. Matute, as intervenors in Civil Case No. 4252 (a suit for attorney’s fees by Atty. Paterno R. Canlas against the estate), filed a petition for certiorari. They challenged several orders of Judge Bullecer: a final order of dismissal dated February 15, 1966 (which dismissed their intervention for failure to prosecute), and subsequent orders declaring them in default, rendering a judgment by default against them, and issuing a writ of execution. They argued the trial court acted without jurisdiction because the subject matter (attorney’s fees secured by a charging lien) was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court.

ISSUE

The primary issues are:
1. In G.R. No. 26751: Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over Matias S. Matute’s petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. 37039-R) challenging his removal as co-administrator.
2. In G.R. No. L-26085: Whether the Court of First Instance of Davao (Branch IV) had jurisdiction over the specific performance case filed by Mariano Nasser concerning a lease contract executed by the estate co-administrator.
3. In G.R. No. L-26106: Whether the Court of First Instance of Davao (Branch IV) had jurisdiction to issue the orders of dismissal, default, judgment, and execution in Civil Case No. 4252 involving a claim for attorney’s fees against the estate.

RULING

1. G.R. No. 26751: The Supreme Court granted the petition. It held that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction. The value of the Amadeo Matute Olave estate exceeded P200,000 (established at P2,132,282.72 per a Compromise Agreement). The subject matter of the certiorari petition was the removal and appointment of a co-administrator, which pertains to the general administration of the entire estate, not merely the collection of P5,000 rentals as claimed by Matias. Since the estate’s value placed it within the Supreme Court’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals’ proceedings were null and void. The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeals’ orders and the probate court’s order of January 31, 1966, thereby maintaining Matias S. Matute as co-administrator.
2. G.R. No. L-26085: The Supreme Court granted the petition. It held that the Court of First Instance of Davao (Branch IV) acted without jurisdiction. The lease contract executed by co-administrator Matias S. Matute was an act of administration. Disputes regarding the validity or enforcement of such acts are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court (the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch IV, in this case) settling the estate. A separate action for specific performance in another branch was improper. The orders of default, judgment by default, and execution were issued in excess of jurisdiction and were set aside.
3. G.R. No. L-26106: The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It upheld the final order of dismissal dated February 15, 1966, as it was a proper exercise of the trial court’s discretion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. However, it held that the subsequent orders declaring the intervenors in default, rendering a judgment by default, and issuing execution were issued without jurisdiction. The claim for attorney’s fees by Atty. Canlas, being a charging lien against the estate’s property, was a matter under the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court. Therefore, these later orders were set aside for having been issued in excess of jurisdiction.
Dispositive Portion:
(1) In L-26751, the petition is granted; the Court of Appeals’ proceedings are declared null and void, and the probate court’s order of January 31, 1966 is set aside, maintaining Matias S. Matute as co-administrator.
(2) In L-26085, the petition is granted; the order of default, judgment by default, and order of execution issued by the respondent Judge are set aside.
(3) In L-26106, the petition is denied regarding the order of dismissal dated February 15, 1966, but granted regarding the subsequent orders of default, judgment by default, and execution, which are set aside.
No costs.