G.R. No.

L-10907 June 29, 1957 "shall always act as aide, interpreter and adviser
AUREA MATIAS, petitioner, of Basilia Salud." Said order, likewise, provided
vs. that "Basilia Salud shall be helped by Mr. Ramon
HON. PRIMITIVO L. GONZALEZ, ETC., ET Plata . . . who is hereby appointed as co-
AL., respondents.
administrator."
CONCEPCION, J.:
Petitioner Aurea Matias seeks a writ
On March 8, 1956, Aurea Matins asked that said
of certiorari to annul certain orders of Hon.
order of February 27, 1956, be set aside and that
Primitivo L. Gonzales, as Judge of the Court of
she be appointed special co-administratrix, jointly
First Instance of Cavite, in connection with Special
with Horacio Rodriguez, upon the ground that
Proceedings No. 5213 of said court, entitled
Basilia Salud is over eighty (80) years of age,
"Testate Estate of the Deceased Gabina Raquel."
totally blind and physically incapacitated to
perform the duties of said office, and that said
On May 15, 1952, Aurea Matias initiated said
movant is the universal heiress of the deceased
special proceedings with a petition for the
and the person appointed by the latter as
probate of a document purporting to be the last
executrix of her alleged will. This motion was
will and testament of her aunt, Gabina Raquel,
denied in an order dated March 10, 1956, which
who died single on May 8, 1952, at the age of 92
maintained "the appointment of the three above
years. The heir to the entire estate of the
named persons" — Basilia Salud, Ramon Plata and
deceased — except the properties bequeathed to
Victorina Salud — "for the management of the
her other niece and nephews, namely, Victorina
estate of the late Gabina Raquel pending final
Salud, Santiago Salud, Policarpio Salud, Santos
decision on the probate of the alleged will of said
Matias and Rafael Matias — is, pursuant to said
decedent." However, on March 17, 1956, Basilia
instrument, Aurea Matias, likewise, appointed
Salud tendered her resignation as special
therein as executrix thereof, without bond. Basilia
administratrix by reason of physical disability, due
Salud, a first cousin of the deceased, opposed the
to old age, and recommended the appointment,
probate of her alleged will, and, after appropriate
in her place, of Victorina Salud. Before any action
proceedings, the court, presided over by
could be taken thereon, or on March 21, 1956,
respondent Judge, issued an order, dated
Aurea Matias sought a reconsideration of said
February 8, 1956, sustaining said opposition and
order of March 10, 1956. Moreover, on March 24,
denying the petition for probate. Subsequently,
1956, she expressed her conformity to said
Aurea Matias brought the matter on appeal to
resignation, but objected to the appointment, in
this Court (G.R. No. L-10751), where it is now
lieu of Basilia Salud, of Victorina Salud, on account
pending decision.
of her antagonism to said Aurea Matias — she
(Victorina Salud) having been the principal and
Meanwhile, or on February 17, 1956, Basilia Salud
most interested witness for the opposition to the
moved for the dismissal of Horacio Rodriguez, as
probate of the alleged will of the deceased — and
special administrator of the estate of the
proposed that the administration of her estate be
deceased, and the appointment, in his stead of
entrusted to the Philippine National Bank, the
Ramon Plata. The motion was set for hearing on
Monte de Piedad, the Bank of the Philippine
February 23, 1956, on which date the court
Islands, or any other similar institution authorized
postponed the hearing to February 27, 1956.
by law therefor, should the court be reluctant to
Although notified of this order, Rodriguez did not
appoint the movant as special administratrix of
appear on the date last mentioned. Instead, he
said estate. This motion for reconsideration was
filed an urgent motion praying for additional time
denied on March 26, 1956.
within which to answer the charges preferred
against him by Basilia Salud and for another
Shortly afterwards, or on June 18, 1956,
postponement of said hearing. This motion was
respondents Ramon Plata and Victorina Salud
not granted, and Basilia Salud introduced
requested authority to collect the rents due, or
evidence in support of said charges, whereupon
which may be due, to the estate of the deceased
respondent Judge by an order, dated February 27,
and to collect all the produce of her lands, which
1956, found Rodriguez guilty of abuse of authority
was granted on June 23, 1956. On June 27, 1956,
and gross negligence, and, accordingly, relieved
said respondents filed another motion praying for
him as special administrator of the estate of the
permission to sell the palay of the deceased then
deceased and appointed Basilia Salud as special
deposited in different rice mills in the province of
administratrix thereof, to "be assisted and
Cavite, which respondent judge granted on June
advised by her niece, Miss Victorina Salud," who
10, 1956. Later on, or on July 10, 1956, petitioner
instituted the present action against Judge 1. Although Horacio Rodriguez had notice of the
Gonzales, and Victorina Salud and Ramon Plata, hearing of the motion for his removal, dated
for the purpose of annulling the above mentioned February 17, 1956, the record shows that
orders of respondent Judge, upon the ground that petitioner herein received copy of said motion of
the same had been issued with grave abuse of February 24, 1956, or the date after that set for
discretion amounting to lack or excess of the hearing thereof. Again, notice of the order of
jurisdiction. respondent Judge, dated February 23, 1956,
postponing said hearing to February 27, 1956,
In support of this pretense, it is argued that was not served on petitioner herein.
petitioner should have preference in the choice of
special administratrix of the estate of the 2. In her motion of February 17, 1956, Basilia
decedent, she (petitioner) being the universal Salud prayed for the dismissal of Horacio
heiress to said estate and, the executrix Rodriguez, and the appointment of Ramon Plata,
appointed in the alleged will of the deceased, that as special administrator of said estate. Petitioner
until its final disallowance — which has not, as had, therefore, no notice that her main
yet, taken place she has a special interest in said opponent, Basilia Salud, and the latter's principal
estate, which must be protected by giving witness, Victorina Salud, would be considered for
representation thereto in the management of said the management of said. As a consequence, said
estate; that, apart from denying her any such petitioner had no opportunity to object to the
representation, the management was given to appointment of Basilia Salud as special
persons partial to her main opponent, namely, administratrix, and of Victorina Salud, as her
Basilia Salud, inasmuch as Victorina Salud is allied assistant and adviser, and the order of February
to her and Ramon Plata is a very close friend of 27, 1956, to this effect, denied due process to said
one of her (Basilia Salud's) attorneys; that Basilia petitioner.
Salud was made special administratrix despite her
obvious unfitness for said office, she being over 3. Said order was issued with evident knowledge
eighty (80) years of age and blind; that said of the physical disability of Basilia Salud.
disability is borne out by the fact that on March Otherwise respondent Judge would not have
17, 1956, Basilia Salud resigned as special directed that she "be assisted and advised by her
administratrix upon such ground; that the Rules niece Victorina Salud," and that the latter
of Court do not permit the appointment of more "shall always act as aide, interpreter and adviser
than one special administrator; that Horacio of Basilia Salud."
Rodriguez was removed without giving petitioner
a chance to be heard in connection therewith; 4. Thus, respondent Judge, in effect, appointed
and that Ramon Plata and Victorina Salud were three (3) special administrators — Basilia Salud,
authorized to collect the rents due to the Victorina Salud and Ramon Plata. Indeed, in the
deceased and the produce of her lands, as well to order of March 10, 1956, respondent Judge
sell her palay, without previous notice to the maintained "the appointment of the three (3)
petitioner herein. above-named persons for the management of the
estate of the late Gabina Raquel."
Upon the other hand, respondents maintain that
respondent Judge acted with the scope of his 5. Soon after the institution of said Special
jurisdiction and without any abuse of discretion; Proceedings No. 5213, an issue arose between
that petitioner can not validly claim any special Aurea Matias and Basilia Salud regarding the
interest in the estate of the deceased, because person to be appointed special administrator of
the probate of the alleged will and testament of the estate of the deceased. The former proposed
the latter — upon which petitioner relies — has Horacio Rodriguez, whereas the latter urged the
been denied; that Horacio Rodriguez was duly appointment of Victorina Salud. By an order dated
notified of the proceedings for his removal; and August 11, 1952, the Court, then presided over by
that Victorina Salud and Ramon Plata have not Hon. Jose Bernabe, Judge, decided the matter in
done anything that would warrant their removal. favor of Horacio Rodriguez and against Victorina
Salud, upon the ground that, unlike the latter,
Upon a review of the record, we find ourselves who, as a pharmacist and employee in the Santa
unable to sanction fully the acts of respondent Isabel Hospital, resides In the City of Manila, the
Judge, for the following reasons: former, a practicing lawyer and a former public
prosecutor, and later, mayor of the City of Cavite,
is a resident thereof. In other words, the order of
resident thereof. In other words, the order of Wherefore, the orders complained of are hereby
respondent Judge of February 27, 1956, removing annulled and set aside. The lower court should re-
Rodriguez and appointing Victorina Salud to the hear the matter of removal of Horacio Rodriguez
management of the estate, amounted to a and appointment of special administrators, after
reversal of the aforementioned order of Judge due notice to all parties concerned, for action in
Bernabe of August 11, 1952. conformity with the views expressed herein, with
costs against respondents Victorina Salud and
6. Although the probate of the alleged will and Ramon Plata. It is so ordered.
testament of Gabina Raquel was denied by
respondent Judge, the order to this effect is not,
as yet, final and executory. It is pending review on
appeal taken by Aurea Matias. The probate of said
alleged will being still within realm of legal
possibility, Aurea Matias has — as the universal
heir and executrix designated in said instrument
— a special interest to protect during the
pendency of said appeal. Thus, in the case
of Roxas vs. Pecson* (46 Off. Gaz., 2058), this
Court held that a widow, designated as executrix
in the alleged will and testament of her deceased
husband, the probate of which had denied in an
order pending appeal, "has . . . the same
beneficial interest after the decision of the court
disapproving the will, which is now pending
appeal, because the decision is not yet final and
may be reversed by the appellate court."

7. The record shows that there are, at least two

(2) factions among the heirs of the deceased,
namely, one, represented by the petitioner, and
another, to which Basilia Salud and Victorina
Salud belong. Inasmuch as the lower court had
deemed it best to appoint more than one special
administrator, justice and equity demands that
both factions be represented in the management
of the estate of the deceased.

The rule, laid down in Roxas vs. Pecson (supra), to

the effect that "only one special administrator
may be appointed to administrator temporarily"
the estate of the deceased, must be considered in
the light of the facts obtaining in said case. The
lower court appointed therein one special
administrator for some properties forming part of
said estate, and a special administratrix for other
properties thereof. Thus, there were two (2)
separate and independent special administrators.
In the case at bar there is only one (1)
special administration, the powers of which shall
be exercised jointly by two special co-
administrators. In short, the Roxas case is not
squarely in point. Moreover, there are authorities
in support of the power of courts to appoint
several special co-administrators (Lewis vs.
Logdan, 87 A. 750; Harrison vs. Clark, 52 A. 514; In
re Wilson's Estate, 61 N.Y.S. 2d., 49; Davenport vs.
Davenport, 60 A. 379).