Title
Zayco vs. Hinlo, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 170243
Decision Date
Apr 16, 2008
Heirs contested estate administration; RTC revoked co-administrators, appointed respondent. SC ruled orders appealable, timely filed, reversing CA.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 170243)

Applicable Law

The case is governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution and relevant provisions of the Rules of Court, particularly concerning appeals in special proceedings.

Background of the Case

Enrique Hinlo died intestate, triggering the need for the administration of his estate. Following his death, his widow Ceferina was appointed as a special administratrix due to her relationship to the deceased. However, due to health issues, she was later replaced by petitioners Nancy H. Zayco and Remo Hinlo. The respondent, Atty. Jesus V. Hinlo, Jr. filed a petition seeking to be appointed as administrator while also moving for the removal of the petitioners. The RTC revoked the petitioners' appointment and granted the respondent letters of administration based upon a P50,000 bond.

Procedural Developments

Petitioners were informed of the RTC's decision on August 2, 2002. They filed a motion for reconsideration shortly after, which was denied on July 23, 2003. Following their receipt of the denial, they filed a notice of appeal on July 31, 2003, and a record on appeal by August 29, 2003. The RTC later ruled that the orders regarding the appointment of the administrator were interlocutory and hence not appealable, also determining that the appeals were tardy.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The petitioners challenged the RTC's ruling by filing a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed the petition on June 27, 2005, asserting that the RTC did not exhibit grave abuse of discretion as the notice of appeal and record were filed beyond the permissible timeframe.

Supreme Court Findings

Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the RTC made an error in classifying the orders as non-appealable. It determined that an order appointing an administrator constitutes a final decision impacting the rights of the parties involved in the estate’s administration. Thus, such an order is indeed appealable. The Court referenced the Neypes doctri

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.