7/27/2019 Manungas v. Loreto

1/3

DIOSDADO S. MANUNGAS, Petitioner, versus MARGARITA AVILA LORETOand FLORENCIA AVILAPARREO, RespondentsG.R. No. 193161 Promulgated: August 22, 2011

.FACTS:

1. Engracia Manungas was the wife of Florentino Manungas (no children of their own).2. They adopted Samuel David Avila (Avila) on August 12, 1968.3. Florentino Manungas died intestate on May 29, 1977, while Avila predeceased his adoptive

mother.4. Avila was survived by his wife Sarah Abarte Vda. de Manungas.5. Engracia Manungas (administatrix) filed a Motion for Partition of Estate on March 31, 1980 in

the intestate estate proceedings of Florentino Manungas (she stated herself, Avila and RamonManungas [natural son of Florentino] as forced heirs). Avilas widow executed a Waiver of

Rights and Participation on October 29, 1980.6. Decree of Final Distribution was issued in the intestate estate proceedings (distributing the

properties to Engracia Manungas and Ramon Manungas).7. October 25, 1995, the RTC of Panabo City, appointed Parreo, the niece of Engracia Manungas,

as the Judicial Guardian of the properties and person of her incompetent aunt.

8. Engracia Manungas, through Parreo, instituted a Civil Case against the spouses DiosdadoSalinas Manungas and Milagros Pacifico for illegal detainer and damages with the MunicipalTrial Court (MTC) in Panabo City (theyre occupying the property because they said Diosdado isan illegitimate son of Florentino). Answer was filed beyond the reglementary period, notconsidered by the MTC = summary judgment was issued in favor of Engracia. Spouses Salinas

appealed in the RTC of Davao City(affirmed decision of MTC).9. August 7, 1998, Diosdado instituted a petition for the issuance of letters of administration over

the Estate of Engracia Manungas (Estate of Manungas) in his favor before the RTC, Branch 2in Tagum City, Davao (Diosdado is Florentinos illegitimate son = Engracias heir) .

10.Petition was opposed by Margarita Avila Loreto (Loreto) and Parreo alleging that Diosdado wasincompetent as an administrator of the Estate of Manungas claiming that a) he was not aManungas, b) that he was not an heir of Engracia Manungas, c) he was not a creditor of Engracia

Manungas or her estate and d) that he was in fact a debtor of the estate (liable to EngraciaManungas for PhP 177,000 because of the MTC decision).

11.RTC appointed Parreno AGAIN as the administrator of the Manunga Estate.12.Diosdado filed aMotion for Reconsideration with a Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and

Preliminary Injunction.Parreos appointment as special administrator of the Estate of Manungas

a) ceased upon Engracia Manungas death (her appointment as special administrator was withoutbasis),b) Parreo was not fit to become a special administrator (already been fined by the court for

failing to render a timely accounting of Engracia Manungas property as her judicial guardian), c)Parreo is a mere niece, a collateral relative, of Engracia Manungas, while he is the illegitimate

son of Florentino Manungas.13.RTC reversed decision, appointed Diosdado as administrator. CA reversed RTC, appointed

Parreno as Administrator.

ISSUE: WON Diosdado should be an administrator of the Manungas Estate (on the basis that hes an

illegitimate child of Florentino).

7/27/2019 Manungas v. Loreto

2/3

HELD: NO. The mere fact that Diosdado is an heir to the estate of Florentino Manungas does not meanthat he is entitled or even qualified to become the special administrator of the Estate of Manungas.

RATIO: Jurisprudence teaches us that the appointment of a special administrator lies within the discretionof the court. InHeirs of Belinda Dahlia A. Castillo v. Lacuata-Gabriel,

[24]it was stated that:

It is well settled that the statutory provisions as to the prior or preferred right of

certain persons to the appointment of administrator under Section 1, Rule 81, as well asthe statutory provisions as to causes for removal of an executor or administrator undersection 653 of Act No. 190, now Section 2, Rule 83, do not apply to the selection orremoval of special administrator. x x x As the law does not say who shall be appointedas special administrator and the qualifications the appointee must have, the judge orcourt has discretion in the selection of the person to be appointed, discretion whichmust be sound, that is, not whimsical or contrary to reason, justice or equity.

While the trial court has the discretion to appoint anyone as a special administrator of the estate,such discretion must be exercised with reason, guided by the directives of equity, justice and legal

principles. It may, therefore, not be remiss to reiterate that the role of a special administrator is to preservethe estate until a regular administrator is appointed. As stated in Sec. 2, Rule 80 of the Rules:

Section 2.Powers and duties of special adminsitrator. Such specialadministrator shall take possession and charge of the goods, chattels, rights, credits, and

estate of the deceased andpreserve the same for the executors or administratorafterwards appointed, and for that purpose may commence and maintain suits asadministrator. He may sell only such perishable and other property as the court orders

sold. A special administrator shall not be liable to pay any debts of the deceased unless soordered by the court.

Given this duty on the part of the special administrator, it would, therefore, be prudent andreasonable to appoint someone interested in preserving the estate for its eventual distribution to the heirs.

Such choice would ensure that such person would not expose the estate to losses that would effectively

diminish his or her share. While the court may use its discretion and depart from such reasoning, still,there is no logical reason to appoint a person who is a debtor of the estate and otherwise a stranger to thedeceased. To do so would be tantamount to grave abuse of discretion.

Hence, the CA ruled that the trial court erred in issuing the November 4, 2002 Order, acting with

grave abuse of discretion in appointing Diosdado as the special administrator of Engracia Manungasestate:

In any case, the trial court erred in revoking the appointment of Florencia AvilaParreo as Special Administrator on the ground that it found merit in Diosdados

contention that he is the illegitimate child of the late Florentino Manangus. The evidenceon record shows that Diosdado is not related to the late Engracia and so he is notinterested in preserving the latters estate. On the other hand, Florencia, who is a

former Judicial guardian of Engracia when she was still alive and who is also the niece ofthe latter, is interested in protecting and preserving the estate of her late aunt Engracia, as

by doing so she would reap the benefit of a wise administration of the decedentsestate. Hence, the Order of the lower court revoking the appointment of FlorenciaAvila Parreo as special administrator constitutes not only a reversible error, butalso a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In theinstant case, the lower court exercised its power in a despotic, arbitrary orcapricious manner, as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusalto perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/193161.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/193161.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/193161.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/193161.htm#_ftn25

7/27/2019 Manungas v. Loreto

3/3

To reiterate, the subject of the intestate proceedings is the estate of Engracia Manungas. It must be

remembered that the estate of Florentino Manungas was already the subject of intestate proceedings thathave long been terminated with the proceeds distributed to the heirs with the issuance of a Decree of FinalDistribution.[27]With the termination of the intestate estate proceedings of Florentino Manungas,Diosdado, as an illegitimate heir of Florentino Manungas, is still not an heir of Engracia Manungas and is

not entitled to receive any part of the Estate of Manungas. In fact, Diosdado is a debtor of the estate andwould have no interest in preserving its value. There is no reason to appoint him as its specialadministrator. The trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in appointing Diosdado as specialadministrator of the Estate of Manungas. The CA correctly set aside the November 4, 2002 Order of theRTC.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/193161.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/193161.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/193161.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/193161.htm#_ftn28