Case Digest (G.R. No. L-40314)
Facts:
Lillian Uytengsu Liu and Susan Uytengsu Limtong v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Honorable Jose C. Borromeo, George K. Young (as executor of the estate of the late Tirso Uytengsu) and Wilfred Uytengsu, G.R. No. L-40314, August 17, 1988, Supreme Court Third Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court.In the testate probate proceedings of the estate of Tirso Uytengsu, Sr., petitioner Lillian Uytengsu moved for the appointment of a special administrator to recover 4,280 shares of General Milling Corporation that she alleged belonged to the estate but had been fraudulently transferred by forgery of the decedent’s signature. She charged that incumbent executor George K. Young participated in the fraudulent transfer and that Wilfred Uytengsu committed the forgeries.
The motion was opposed by Wilfred Uytengsu and the decedent’s widow, who argued that appointment of a special administrator was neither proper nor authorized by the Rules of Court. The trial judge (Branch IV, Court of First Instance of Cebu, Hon. Jose C. Borromeo presiding) denied the motion on January 10, 1974, reasoning that appointment of a special administrator for the purpose of instituting a separate action to prove falsification and recover the shares was not proper because the alleged forgery had already been referred to the city fiscal for investigation.
Petitioner Lillian then filed a manifestation that the city fiscal had found a prima facie case of forgery against Wilfred, Young and another, and had endorsed the case to the Office for Civil Relations of the AFP under certain General Orders. Petitioner timely filed an appeal, but the trial court disapproved the record on appeal and dismissed the appeal on July 19, 1974, treating the order denying appointment as interlocutory and therefore not appealable.
After denial of reconsideration, petitioners sought relief in the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for mandamus or certiorari, asking the appellate court alternatively to direct the trial judge to approve and certify the record of appeal, or to find that the judge abused his discretion in not requiring the executor to take steps to recover the shares or in not relieving him. The Court of Appeals, on January 3, 1975, dismissed the petition for lack of attached pertinent pleadings and documents, and affirmed that appointment or denial of a special administrator is within the trial court’s sound discretion and interlocutory in nature; it further noted that an executor (Young) was already incumbent.
Petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari filed March 18, 1975, contending that the order denying appointment was not interlocutory because nothing remained to be done and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court and the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion by treating the order denying the appointment of a special administrator as interlocutory and dismissing the appeal?
- Were petitioners entitled to the appointment of a special administrator (or removal of the executor) on the basis of their allegation and a purported prima facie finding ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)