G.R. No. 167321 - San Juan, Jr. vs. Cruz

Loreto Samia San Juan, the testatrix, executed a Last Will and Testament naming Oscar Casa as one of the devisees.
After the death of Loreto on October 25, 1988, Atty. Teodorico A. Aquino initiated probate proceedings in the RTC of Quezon City (Special Proceedings No. 98-36118, Branch 224).
During the pending probate, Oscar Casa died intestate on May 24, 1999.

The law firm representing Federico Casa, Jr.—who claimed to be one of Oscar Casa’s heirs—sought substitution by entering their appearance; however, the probate court denied the firm’s appearance on August 14, 2002.
On November 22, 2002, the probate court directed Aquino to secure an administrator or executor for the estate of Oscar Casa as his substitute.
On February 26, 2003, Aquino submitted a pleading entitled “Appointment of Administrator,” signed by several heirs including Federico Casa, Jr., now designated as “ADMINISTRATOR” to represent the deceased’s estate, and authorized to act in the probate proceedings.

Epifanio San Juan, Jr., the petitioner, filed a “Motion to Declare Appointment of Administrator As Inadequate or Insufficient” contending that:

The heirs should present an administrator who is properly appointed by the court rather than a representative designated by themselves.
Substitution of a deceased party requires a valid legal representative appointed in accordance with Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.

The RTC, on December 2, 2003, denied San Juan’s motion, ruling that the court did not need a court-appointed administrator as long as a representative was designated, in line with Section 16, Rule 3.
San Juan filed a motion for reconsideration on December 30, 2003, asserting that:

Priority should be given to an executor or administrator as the legal representative, in accordance with Article 1058 of the New Civil Code and certain provisions of the Rules of Court.
Proper substitution requires a prior determination of the rightful heirs, a step bypassed by the probate court's orders.

A second motion was filed on May 7, 2004, citing Torres, Jr. v. CA and emphasizing due process rights in substitution proceedings.
The RTC denied the second motion on June 11, 2004, relying on prior cases (MontaAano v. Suesa and Riera v. Palmanori) and noting that no administrator needed appointment at that stage.
A third motion for reconsideration was filed on July 23, 2004, objecting to the reliance on the appellate cases and reiterating that substitution should require a prior hearing to identify the rightful heirs.
The RTC, on September 8, 2004, sustained the opposition's argument, deeming the motion as another instance of rehashed grounds already passed upon.

On July 23, 2004, San Juan, now acting as petitioner, contested the RTC’s orders and raised two main issues on appeal:

Whether the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari (under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court) should be computed from the denial of the first motion for reconsideration or from subsequent motions.
Whether the appointment of Federico Casa, Jr. as “administrator” by the heirs is valid for substituting the deceased devisee, despite him not being the court-appointed administrator.

The CA dismissed San Juan’s petition on December 1, 2004 for lack of timeliness, emphasizing that the 60-day period had run from the denial of the first motion for reconsideration.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration of the CA resolution was filed by San Juan, which was denied on February 24, 2005.
Finally, petitioner sought relief from the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari to reverse the CA’s resolutions.

Whether the 60-day period under Rule 65 for filing a petition for certiorari should be reckoned from the denial of the first motion for reconsideration (an interlocutory order) or from that of subsequent motions for reconsideration.
Whether subsequent motions for reconsideration, which are not categorically forbidden when dealing with interlocutory orders, should toll the running of the 60-day period.

Whether the appointment by the purported heirs of Federico Casa, Jr. as “administrator” is sufficient to substitute for the deceased Oscar Casa in the probate proceedings.
Whether, in the absence of a court-appointed executor or administrator, the heirs may effectively substitute in accordance with Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.