G.R. No. L-6476 November 18, 1955
FRANCISCO DE BORJA as Executor of the Estate of the deceased JOSEFA TANGCO, petitioner, vs. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and JOSE DE BORJA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Francisco de Borja was the executor of the estate of his deceased wife Josefa Tangco, her will having been probated in 1941. Due to Francisco’s physical inability to administer the estate, the lower court appointed Crisanto de Borja as co-administrator on August 25, 1951. On April 9, 1952, the trial court, allegedly without petition or notice, appointed respondent Jose de Borja as co-administrator. Francisco, Matilde, and Crisanto moved for reconsideration, but by order of August 14, 1952, the respondent Judge indirectly denied the motion, revoked Crisanto’s appointment, and directed Jose de Borja to comment on Francisco’s amended account. Francisco, Matilde, and Crisanto filed a notice of appeal from the order appointing Jose as co-administrator and the order denying reconsideration, and later filed a record on appeal. By order of December 27, 1952, respondent Judge disapproved the record on appeal and refused to give due course to the appeal on the ground that the appointment of a co-administrator was interlocutory and not appealable. Hence, this petition for mandamus to compel approval of the record on appeal and to give due course to the appeal.

ISSUE

Whether an order appointing a co-administrator is appealable.

RULING

Yes. The Court held that an order appointing a regular administrator is appealable, while an order appointing a special administrator is not. A co-administrator is not a special administrator. A special administrator is appointed only for a limited time and specific purpose, such as when there is a delay in granting letters testamentary or when the regular administrator has a claim against the estate. In contrast, a co-administrator performs all the functions and duties and exercises all the powers of a regular administrator, merely sharing the role. Considering the circumstances of the case, where the original administrator was physically and mentally disabled, making the co-administrator practically the sole administrator, the appointment was equivalent to that of a sole regular administrator. Therefore, the appointment of a co-administrator, especially under these circumstances, is appealable. The petition for mandamus was granted, and the respondent Judge was directed to approve the record on appeal and give due course to the appeal. No costs.