G.R. NO. 193161 AUGUST 22, 2011 DIOSDADO S.

MANUNGAS

VS. MARGARITA AVILA LORETO AND FLORENCIA AVILA PARREÑO

FACTS: .

. the surviving heirs. •DECREE OF FINAL DISTRIBUTION was issued in the intestate estate proceedings of Florentino Manungas.IN HER MOTION FOR PARTITION ENGRACIA STATED THAT: •MANUNGAS has no other legal and compulsory heirs except for herself. OCTOBER 29. 1990 •AVILA’S WIDOW executed a WAIVER OF RIGHTS AND PARTICIPATION. distributing the properties to Engracia and Ramon. Samuel and one RAMON MANUNGAS(whom she acknowledged as the natural son of FLORENTINO). renouncing her rightsover the separate property of her husband in favor of Engracia Manungas.

Diosdado Salinas Manungas and Milagros Pacifico. however. The Decision was appealed both to the RTC and SC but the same was Denied for having been filed out of time in a Resolution which became FINAL AND EXECUTORY on April 10. The Court rendered a Decision in favor of Engracia Manungas. •Engracia. 1998. thru Parreño filed an action for illegal detainer and damages against Sps. they were declared in default for failure to file their answer within the period allowed by law. 1995: •RTC PANABO CITY appointed FLORENCIA AVILA PARREÑO. . niece of Engracia Manungas as the Judicial Guardian of the properties of her incompetent aunt.OCTOBER 25. DIOSDADO’S ANSWER: He claimed that he is the illegitimate son of Florentino Manungas.

1998 •DIOSDADO filed a Petition for the Issuance of Letters of Administration over the Estate of Engracia Manungas in his favor.The RTC issued an Order appointing Parreño as the Administrator of the estate of Manungas. •PARREÑO opposed the said petition alleging that Diosdado was incompetent as an administrator of the estate of Manungas. a collateral relative. That she was not fit to become a special administrator because she is a mere niece of Engracia. DIOSDADO •Filed a Motion for Reconsideration with a Prayer for TRO and PI alleging therein that Parreño’s appointment was by virtue of her being the Judicial guardian of Engracia which such relation ceased upon her death. •May 15.AUGUST 7. . 2002. while he is the illegitimate son of Florentino Manungas.

NOVEMBER 4. • PARREÑO appealed the said Court order before the CA. ISSUES: W/N THE COURT UTTERLY DISREGARDED THE JURISPRUDENCE THAT CETIORARI CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED FOR AN APPEAL WHERE THE LATTER REMEDY IS AVAILABLE W/N THE COURT’S DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S MR VIOLATES THE RULE THAT ONCE A DECISION OR ORDER IS FINAL AND EXECUTORY IT BECOMES IMMUTABLE AND UNALTERABLE W/N THE COURT COMMITED A GRAVE ERROR WHEN IT RULED TO ANNUL THE APPOINTMENT OF DIOSDADO AS JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATOR AND REINSTATING THE APPOINTMENT OF PARREÑO AS A SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR . •CA reinstated the appointment of PARREÑO as the Special Administrator of the Estate of Engracia •DIOSDADO appealed the CA decision in a Motion for Reconsideration which the CA DENIED. 2002 •The court issued an Order reversing iself and ordering the revocation of its earlier appointment of Parreño.

1(b) of Rule 41 states : An Appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case… No appeal may be taken from: xxxxx (b) An interlocutory order .RULING: • The Order cannot be the subject of an appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of • Court as argued by the petitioner(Diosdado). (The Court does not finally dispose of the case and does not end the Court’s task of adjudicating the parties’ contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other things remain to be done by the court is interlocutory) Thus. • The proper remedy is the filing of Petition for Cetiorari under Rule 65. sec. 2002 is an INTERLOCUTORY ORDER. The RTC order dated November 4.

there is no need for a MR. . speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law such as MR to justify the filing of a Petition for Certiorari. there are several exceptions where a petition for certiorari will lie without the prior filing of a Motion for Reconsideration. However. (1)The instant case is clearly an exception to the general rule because the November 4. therefore. 2002 order reveals that the issues are only question of law. to wit: •Where the issue raised is one purely of law. The Writ of Certiorari does not lie where another adequate remedy is available for the correction of error. there must be no other plain.•There was no necessity to file a Motion for Reconsideration Under Rule 65.

equity. THEREFORE. As long as the discretion is exercised with grave abuse and is based on reason. .•The RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion. The fact that Diosdado is an heir to the estate of Florentino Manungas does not mean that he is entitled or even qualified to become the special administrator of the estate of Manungas. interference of higher court is unwarranted. justice and legal principles. THE PETITION IS HEREBY DENIED. Jurisprudence teaches us that the appointment of special administrator lies within the jurisdiction of the Court.