Case Digest (G.R. No. 167979)
Facts:
Wilson S. Uy, as Judicial Administrator of the Intestate Estate of the Deceased Jose K. C. Uy, G.R. No. 167979, March 16, 2006, Supreme Court First Division, Ynares-Santiago, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner challenges the Court of Appeals’ August 20, 2004 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 72678 and the April 29, 2005 Resolution denying reconsideration, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 52, Bacolod City’s January 22, 2002 Order in Special Proceedings No. 97-241.Jose K. C. Uy died intestate on August 20, 1996, survived by his spouse and five children, including petitioner Wilson S. Uy. On February 18, 1997, Special Proceedings No. 97-241 was filed and Lilia Hofilena was initially appointed special administrator. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of that appointment and for letters of administration to be issued to him.
On June 9, 1998, Judge Ramon B. Posadas revoked Hofilena’s appointment as special administrator, denied her petition to be appointed regular administrator, and granted letters of administration to petitioner; petitioner took his oath on June 23, 1998. On February 17, 1999, Johnny K. H. Uy (private respondent), who alleged he was a brother and creditor of the decedent, filed a motion to intervene and sought appointment as administrator based on his knowledge of the decedent’s properties.
The trial court first denied private respondent’s motion to intervene but, on March 16, 2000, reconsidered and appointed him co-administrator while retaining petitioner as administrator. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner then moved for an order directing private respondent to bring into the estate properties allegedly concealed; the trial court granted that motion, later finding that private respondent substantially complied and therefore denied petitioner’s subsequent motion to remove him as co-administrator.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging the RTC’s appointment of private respondent as co-administrator. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion or exceed its jurisdiction in appointing a co-administrator, that the order of preference under Section 6, Rule 78 of the...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion or act without jurisdiction in appointing Johnny K. H. Uy as co-administrator of the estate despite an incumbent regular administrator?
- Did the Court of Appeals deprive petitioner of his constitutional right to due process and to petition for redress by failing to resolve issues of res judicata and the stability of petitioner’s appointment and by deciding the c...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)