GR L 4138; (September, 1907) (Digest)
G.R. No. L‑4138 (September 24 1907)
FACTS
– The Court of First Instance of Manila issued an order (May 4 1907) appointing a general administrator for the estates of the deceased Sy Lay, Sy Chun Tek, and Sy Bang Co.
– Sy Lioc Suy (appellant) challenged the appointment, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to name an administrator for estates that pre‑dated the enactment of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the order was not appealable.
– The appellant filed a petition for ordinary relief before the Supreme Court, while the appellee moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that an order appointing an administrator is not a final order subject to appeal, that notice of appeal was lacking, and that the appeal bond should be increased.
ISSUE
1. Whether an order appointing a general administrator of an estate constitutes a “final determination of the rights of the parties” and is therefore appealable under Section 783 of the Code of Civil Procedure, notwithstanding the proviso that “no appeal shall be allowed from the appointment of a special administrator.”
2. Whether procedural defects (lack of notice, insufficiency of the appeal bond) warrant dismissal of the appeal.
RULING
– The Supreme Court held that the appointment of a general administrator is a final determination of jurisdiction and of the proper venue for administering the estates, thus falling within the class of orders from which appeal is expressly permitted by Sec. 783. The statutory proviso bars only appeals from the appointment of a special administrator; it does not preclude appeals from a general administrator.
– The Court relied on Sec. 603, which allows contest of jurisdiction “except in an appeal from that court,” confirming the legislature’s intent to permit appellate review of such determinations.
– No statutory requirement for prior notice of appeal was found; the appeal was therefore proper.
– The bond issue was resolved by noting that the appeal bond of ₱21,000 exceeded the ₱20,000 bond required of the general administrator, rendering the appellant’s request for an increase unwarranted.
Disposition:
– The motion to dismiss the appeal is DENIED.
– The motion to increase the appeal bond is DENIED.
The order appointing a general administrator is appealable; the appeal proceeds.