G.R. No. 170243 - Zayco vs. Hinlo, Jr.

Enrique Hinlo died intestate on January 31, 1986, leaving behind an estate to be administered in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental, Silay City, Branch 40.
Initially, Ceferina Hinlo, the widow of Enrique, was appointed as the special administratrix of his estate.
On December 23, 1991, due to Ceferina’s deteriorating health and inability to effectively manage the estate, Nancy H. Zayco and Remo Hinlo (petitioners) were appointed as co-administrators.

On March 4, 2003, respondent Atty. Jesus V. Hinlo, Jr.—a grandson of Enrique and an heir by representation—filed a petition for the issuance of letters of administration in his favor.
Concurrently, respondent filed an urgent motion for the removal of the petitioners as co-administrators, contesting their continued involvement in the estate’s administration.
Petitioners opposed both the petition and the motion for their removal.

The RTC, in its order dated July 23, 2002, revoked the appointment of the petitioners as co-administrators and directed the issuance of letters of administration in favor of the respondent, subject to the posting of a ₱50,000 bond.
Respondent complied by posting the required bond, taking the oath as administrator, and being issued the letters of administration.
Petitioners received a copy of the July 23, 2002 order on August 2, 2002 and subsequently moved for its reconsideration on August 9, 2002.
The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration in an order dated July 23, 2003.
Upon receipt of the July 23, 2003 denial on July 31, 2003, petitioners filed a notice of appeal the same day and subsequently filed the record on appeal on August 29, 2003.

The RTC ruled that the orders dated July 23, 2002 and July 23, 2003 were interlocutory, thereby not appealable, and further held that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period.
The reglementary period was computed from the receipt of the July 23, 2002 order (August 2, 2002) until the motion for reconsideration and then restarted from the receipt of the July 23, 2003 order (July 31, 2003); the total elapsed period was calculated at 36 days.
Petitioners subsequently challenged the RTC’s ruling on appealability and the timeliness of their filings.

Petitioners advanced their challenge to the CA by filing a petition for certiorari and mandamus against the RTC’s decision.
In its June 27, 2005 decision and accompanying October 27, 2005 resolution, the CA dismissed petitioners’ challenge, ruling there was no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC regarding the appeal period.
Petitioners then sought reconsideration in the CA, which was ultimately denied, prompting the current petition before the Supreme Court.

Whether the RTC erred in ruling that the orders dated July 23, 2002 and July 23, 2003 were merely interlocutory and not appealable.
Whether an order appointing an administrator constitutes a final determination of the rights of the parties, thereby making it appealable.

Whether the filing of the notice of appeal and the record on appeal was made within the prescribed 30-day period.
Whether the computation of the reglementary appeal period—considering the interruption due to the motion for reconsideration—was properly applied.