AUREA MATIAS, petitioner, vs. !N. "RIMITI#! L. G!N$ALE$, ET%., ET AL., respondents. Petitioner Aurea Matias seeks a writ of certiorari to annul certain orders of Hon. Primitivo L. Gonzales, as Judge of the ourt of !irst "nstance of avite, in connection with #pecial Proceedings $o. %&'( of said court, entitled )*estate +state of the ,eceased Ga-ina .a/uel.) 0n Ma1 '%, '2%&, Aurea Matias initiated said special proceedings with a petition for the pro-ate of a document purporting to -e the last will and testament of her aunt, Ga-ina .a/uel, who died single on Ma1 3, '2%&, at the age of 2& 1ears. *he heir to the entire estate of the deceased 4 e5cept the properties -e/ueathed to her other niece and nephews, namel1, 6ictorina #alud, #antiago #alud, Policarpio #alud, #antos Matias and .afael Matias 4 is, pursuant to said instrument, Aurea Matias, likewise, appointed therein as e5ecutri5 thereof, without -ond. 7asilia #alud, a first cousin of the deceased, opposed the pro-ate of her alleged will, and, after appropriate proceedings, the court, presided over -1 respondent Judge, issued an order, dated !e-ruar1 3, '2%8, sustaining said opposition and den1ing the petition for pro-ate. #u-se/uentl1, Aurea Matias -rought the matter on appeal to this ourt 9G... $o. L:';<%'=, where it is now pending decision. Meanwhile, or on !e-ruar1 '<, '2%8, 7asilia #alud moved for the dismissal of Horacio .odriguez, as special administrator of the estate of the deceased, and the appointment, in his stead of .amon Plata. *he motion was set for hearing on !e-ruar1 &(, '2%8, on which date the court postponed the hearing to !e-ruar1 &<, '2%8. Although notified of this order, .odriguez did not appear on the date last mentioned. "nstead, he filed an urgent motion pra1ing for additional time within which to answer the charges preferred against him -1 7asilia #alud and for another postponement of said hearing. *his motion was not granted, and 7asilia #alud introduced evidence in support of said charges, whereupon respondent Judge -1 an order, dated !e-ruar1 &<, '2%8, found .odriguez guilt1 of a-use of authorit1 and gross negligence, and, accordingl1, relieved him as special administrator of the estate of the deceased and appointed 7asilia #alud as special administratri5 thereof, to )-e assisted and advised -1 her niece, Miss 6ictorina #alud,) who )shall alwa1s act as aide, interpreter and adviser of 7asilia #alud.) #aid order, likewise, provided that )7asilia #alud shall -e helped -1 Mr. .amon Plata . . . who is here-1 appointed as co:administrator.) 0n March 3, '2%8, Aurea Matins asked that said order of !e-ruar1 &<, '2%8, -e set aside and that she -e appointed special co:administratri5, >ointl1 with Horacio .odriguez, upon the ground that 7asilia #alud is over eight1 93;= 1ears of age, totall1 -lind and ph1sicall1 incapacitated to perform the duties of said office, and that said movant is the universal heiress of the deceased and the person appointed -1 the latter as e5ecutri5 of her alleged will. *his motion was denied in an order dated March ';, '2%8, which maintained )the appointment of the three a-ove named persons) 4 7asilia #alud, .amon Plata and 6ictorina #alud 4 )for the management of the estate of the late Ga-ina .a/uel pending final decision on the pro-ate of the alleged will of said decedent.) However, on March '<, '2%8, 7asilia #alud tendered her resignation as special administratri5 -1 reason of ph1sical disa-ilit1, due to old age, and recommended the appointment, in her place, of 6ictorina #alud. 7efore an1 action could -e taken thereon, or on March &', '2%8, Aurea Matias sought a reconsideration of said order of March ';, '2%8. Moreover, on March &?, '2%8, she e5pressed her conformit1 to said resignation, -ut o->ected to the appointment, in lieu of 7asilia #alud, of 6ictorina #alud, on account of her antagonism to said Aurea Matias 4 she 96ictorina #alud= having -een the principal and most interested witness for the opposition to the pro-ate of the alleged will of the deceased 4 and proposed that the administration of her estate -e entrusted to the Philippine $ational 7ank, the Monte de Piedad, the 7ank of the Philippine "slands, or an1 other similar institution authorized -1 law therefor, should the court -e reluctant to appoint the movant as special administratri5 of said estate. *his motion for reconsideration was denied on March &8, '2%8. #hortl1 afterwards, or on June '3, '2%8, respondents .amon Plata and 6ictorina #alud re/uested authorit1 to collect the rents due, or which ma1 -e due, to the estate of the deceased and to collect all the produce of her lands, which was granted on June &(, '2%8. 0n June &<, '2%8, said respondents filed another motion pra1ing for permission to sell the pala1 of the deceased then deposited in different rice mills in the province of avite, which respondent >udge granted on June ';, '2%8. Later on, or on Jul1 ';, '2%8, petitioner instituted the present action against Judge Gonzales, and 6ictorina #alud and .amon Plata, for the purpose of annulling the a-ove mentioned orders of respondent Judge, upon the ground that the same had -een issued with grave a-use of discretion amounting to lack or e5cess of >urisdiction. "n support of this pretense, it is argued that petitioner should have preference in the choice of special administratri5 of the estate of the decedent, she 9petitioner= -eing the universal heiress to said estate and, the e5ecutri5 appointed in the alleged will of the deceased, that until its final disallowance 4 which has not, as 1et, taken place she has a special interest in said estate, which must -e protected -1 giving representation thereto in the management of said estate@ that, apart from den1ing her 2 an1 such representation, the management was given to persons partial to her main opponent, namel1, 7asilia #alud, inasmuch as 6ictorina #alud is allied to her and .amon Plata is a ver1 close friend of one of her 97asilia #aludAs= attorne1s@ that 7asilia #alud was made special administratri5 despite her o-vious unfitness for said office, she -eing over eight1 93;= 1ears of age and -lind@ that said disa-ilit1 is -orne out -1 the fact that on March '<, '2%8, 7asilia #alud resigned as special administratri5 upon such ground@ that the .ules of ourt do not permit the appointment of more than one special administrator@ that Horacio .odriguez was removed without giving petitioner a chance to -e heard in connection therewith@ and that .amon Plata and 6ictorina #alud were authorized to collect the rents due to the deceased and the produce of her lands, as well to sell her pala1, without previous notice to the petitioner herein. Bpon the other hand, respondents maintain that respondent Judge acted with the scope of his >urisdiction and without an1 a-use of discretion@ that petitioner can not validl1 claim an1 special interest in the estate of the deceased, -ecause the pro-ate of the alleged will and testament of the latter 4 upon which petitioner relies 4 has -een denied@ that Horacio .odriguez was dul1 notified of the proceedings for his removal@ and that 6ictorina #alud and .amon Plata have not done an1thing that would warrant their removal. Bpon a review of the record, we find ourselves una-le to sanction full1 the acts of respondent Judge, for the following reasonsC '. Although Horacio .odriguez had notice of the hearing of the motion for his removal, dated !e-ruar1 '<, '2%8, the record shows that petitioner herein received cop1 of said motion of !e-ruar1 &?, '2%8, or the date after that set for the hearing thereof. Again, notice of the order of respondent Judge, dated !e-ruar1 &(, '2%8, postponing said hearing to !e-ruar1 &<, '2%8, was not served on petitioner herein. &. "n her motion of !e-ruar1 '<, '2%8, 7asilia #alud pra1ed for the dismissal of Horacio .odriguez, and the appointment of Ramon Plata, as special administrator of said estate. Petitioner had, therefore, no notice that her main opponent, Basilia Salud, and the latterAs principal witness, Victorina Salud, would -e considered for the management of said. As a conse/uence, said petitioner had no opportunit1 to o->ect to the appointment of 7asilia #alud as special administratri5, and of 6ictorina #alud, as her assistant and adviser, and the order of !e-ruar1 &<, '2%8, to this effect, denied due process to said petitioner. (. #aid order was issued with evident knowledge of the ph1sical disa-ilit1 of 7asilia #alud. 0therwise respondent Judge would not have directed that she )-e assisted and advised -1 her niece 6ictorina #alud,) and that the latter )shall always act as aide, interpreter and adviser of 7asilia #alud.) ?. *hus, respondent Judge, in effect, appointed three 9(= special administrators 4 7asilia #alud, 6ictorina #alud and .amon Plata. "ndeed, in the order of March ';, '2%8, respondent Judge maintained )the appointment of the three 9(= a-ove:named persons for the management of the estate of the late Ga-ina .a/uel.) %. #oon after the institution of said #pecial Proceedings $o. %&'(, an issue arose -etween Aurea Matias and 7asilia #alud regarding the person to -e appointed special administrator of the estate of the deceased. *he former proposed Horacio .odriguez, whereas the latter urged the appointment of 6ictorina #alud. 71 an order dated August '', '2%&, the ourt, then presided over -1 Hon. Jose 7erna-e, Judge, decided the matter in favor of Horacio .odriguez and against 6ictorina #alud, upon the ground that, unlike the latter, who, as a pharmacist and emplo1ee in the #anta "sa-el Hospital, resides "n the it1 of Manila, the former, a practicing law1er and a former pu-lic prosecutor, and later, ma1or of the it1 of avite, is a resident thereof. "n other words, the order of resident thereof. "n other words, the order of respondent Judge of !e-ruar1 &<, '2%8, removing .odriguez and appointing 6ictorina #alud to the management of the estate, amounted to a reversal of the aforementioned order of Judge 7erna-e of August '', '2%&. 8. Although the pro-ate of the alleged will and testament of Ga-ina .a/uel was denied -1 respondent Judge, the order to this effect is not, as 1et, final and e5ecutor1. "t is pending review on appeal taken -1 Aurea Matias. *he pro-ate of said alleged will -eing still within realm of legal possi-ilit1, Aurea Matias has 4 as the universal heir and e5ecutri5 designated in said instrument 4 a special interest to protect during the pendenc1 of said appeal. *hus, in the case of Roxas vs. Pecson D
9?8 0ff. Gaz., &;%3=, this ourt held that a widow, designated as e5ecutri5 in the alleged will and testament of her deceased hus-and, the pro-ate of which had denied in an order pending appeal, )has . . . the same beneficial interest after the decision of the court disapproving the will, which is now pending appeal, because the decision is not yet final and may be reversed by the appellate court.) <. *he record shows that there are, at least two 9&= factions among the heirs of the deceased, namel1, one, represented -1 the petitioner, and another, to which 7asilia #alud and 6ictorina #alud -elong. "nasmuch as the lower court had deemed it -est to appoint more than one special administrator, >ustice and e/uit1 demands that -oth factions -e represented in the management of the estate of the deceased. 3 *he rule, laid down in Roxas vs. Pecson 9supra=, to the effect that )onl1 one special administrator ma1 -e appointed to administrator temporaril1) the estate of the deceased, must -e considered in the light of the facts o-taining in said case. *he lower court appointed therein one special administrator for some properties forming part of said estate, and a special administratri5 for other properties thereof. *hus, there were two 9&= separate and independent special administrators. "n the case at -ar there is onl1 one 9'= special administration, the powers of which shall -e e5ercised >ointl1 -1 two special co-administrators. "n short, the .o5as case is not s/uarel1 in point. Moreover, there are authorities in support of the power of courts to appoint several special co:administrators 9Lewis vs. Logdan, 3< A. <%;@ Harrison vs. lark, %& A. %'?@ "n re EilsonAs +state, 8' $.F.#. &d., ?2@ ,avenport vs. ,avenport, 8; A. (<2=. Eherefore, the orders complained of are here-1 annulled and set aside. *he lower court should re:hear the matter of removal of Horacio .odriguez and appointment of special administrators, after due notice to all parties concerned, for action in conformit1 with the views e5pressed herein, with costs against respondents 6ictorina #alud and .amon Plata. "t is so ordered.