Title
Mackay vs. Angeles
Case
G.R. No. 144230
Decision Date
Sep 30, 2003
Petitioner removed as estate administrator for failing to submit inventory, pay taxes; replacement upheld by courts due to undue delay and necessity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 207711)

Procedural and Factual Background

Petitioner was appointed regular administrator of the decedent’s estate on March 20, 1996. After nearly 24 months, petitioner had neither filed the statutorily required inventory of estate assets and liabilities nor paid estate taxes. On March 10, 1998, private respondent filed an urgent motion to remove petitioner for these failures. Petitioner filed opposition on March 30, 1998 but failed to appear at scheduled hearings despite proper notice. The RTC issued an order on July 15, 1998 relieving petitioner as administrator and directing issuance of letters of administration to private respondent upon filing a P20,000 bond. The RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on August 28, 1998; petitioner received that order on September 7, 1998 and filed a notice of appeal on September 29, 1998. Meanwhile, the RTC had issued letters of administration in favor of private respondent on September 24, 1998. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction/restraining order in the Court of Appeals on October 8, 1998 (amended October 12, 1998). The Court of Appeals denied a temporary restraining order on November 26, 1998, and on April 14, 2000 dismissed the petition, affirming the RTC’s orders; reconsideration was denied July 26, 2000. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari.

Primary legal issues presented

Primary Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the RTC properly ordered immediate issuance of letters of administration to private respondent despite the pendency of an appeal by petitioner.
  2. Whether the issuance of letters of administration on September 24, 1998 was premature and therefore indicative of grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.
  3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the presumption of regularity to the issuance of letters of administration and in adjudicating issues petitioner contended were not properly raised in the certiorari petition.

Standard of review and relevant legal principles

Standard of Review and Relevant Legal Principles

  • Discretionary execution: Section 2, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court permits a trial court, or an appellate court after the trial court loses jurisdiction, to order execution of a judgment or final order pending appeal upon a showing of good reasons stated in a special order after due hearing. This discretionary execution mechanism allows practical measures to prevent prejudice or administrative paralysis when circumstances justify immediate execution.
  • Precedent permitting immediate assumption: De Borja v. Tan recognizes that a trial court does not commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering an appointee to immediately assume the office of administrator pending appeal when sufficient reasons exist to warrant execution pending appeal.
  • Scope of certiorari under Rule 45 vs certiorari as an original remedy under Rule 65: In appeals by certiorari under Rule 45, the proper grounds are limited to questions of law. Allegations of grave abuse of discretion, lack or excess of jurisdiction — the province of original certiorari under Rule 65 — are not ordinarily cognizable in a Rule 45 petition. This distinction is reinforced by Reas v. Bonife and Fajardo v. Bautista, which emphasize that certiorari (Rule 45) as a mode of appeal differs from certiorari as an original action (Rule 65), and that remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive.

Court’s analysis on discretionary execution and removal

Court’s Analysis on Discretionary Execution and Removal

The courts below found adequate justification for discretionary execution. The RTC concluded, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that the estate would be left without an administrator and that settlement of the estate had been unduly delayed due to petitioner’s inaction (failure to render an accounting, failure to pay estate taxes, and failure to appear at hearings). Given the statutory duty of trial courts to expedite settlement of estates and the express authorization under Rule 39 to order execution pending appeal when good reasons exist, the trial court’s order allowing immediate issuance of letters of administration was within its discretion and was not characterized as grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court concurred that these factual circumstances supported discretionary execution and thus found no grave abuse of discretion in the trial court’s acts nor error in the Court of Appeals’ affirmation.

On the scope of review and petitioner’s contentions

On Scope of Review and Petitioner’s Contentions

Petitioner argued that the issuance of letters of administration was premature because his appeal had been perfected or was pending and therefore the order should not have been executed. He also contended that the Court of Appeals improperly applied the presumption of regularity and resolved issues (e.g., private respondent’s qualifications, propriety of petitioner’s discharge) not raised in the petition. The courts treated these contentions within the established procedural boundaries: where the remedy invoked is an appeal by certiorari (Rule 45), only errors of law can be raised. Allegations amounting to grave abuse of discretion are generally not proper under Rule 45 and thus receive limited consideration. The courts found that petitioner had not demon

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms