Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 206 views

    Manungas V Loreto

    Uploaded by

    Tey Torrente
    This case involves a dispute over the estate of Engracia Manungas. Diosdado Manungas claims to be the illegitimate son of Florentino Manungas, and thus an heir to Engracia's estate. However, Margarita Avila Loreto and Florencia Parreo oppose Diosdado's petition to be appointed administrator, arguing he is not a qualified heir or creditor. The RTC initially appointed Parreo as administrator but later revoked this and appointed Diosdado instead. Parreo and Loreto appealed this order to the CA. The Supreme Court ruled the RTC order was interlocutory in nature rather than final, so an appeal under Rule 45 was not proper - instead

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Manungas V Loreto

    Uploaded by

    Tey Torrente
    206 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over the estate of Engracia Manungas. Diosdado Manungas claims to be the illegitimate son of Florentino Manungas, and thus an heir to Engracia's estate. However, Margarita Avila Loreto and Florencia Parreo oppose Diosdado's petition to be appointed administrator, arguing he is not a qualified heir or creditor. The RTC initially appointed Parreo as administrator but later revoked this and appointed Diosdado instead. Parreo and Loreto appealed this order to the CA. The Supreme Court ruled the RTC order was interlocutory in nature rather than final, so an appeal under Rule 45 was not proper - instead

    Original Description:

    digest appellate

    Original Title

    Manungas v Loreto

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over the estate of Engracia Manungas. Diosdado Manungas claims to be the illegitimate son of Florentino Manungas, and thus an heir to Engracia's estate. However, Margarita Avila Loreto and Florencia Parreo oppose Diosdado's petition to be appointed administrator, arguing he is not a qualified heir or creditor. The RTC initially appointed Parreo as administrator but later revoked this and appointed Diosdado instead. Parreo and Loreto appealed this order to the CA. The Supreme Court ruled the RTC order was interlocutory in nature rather than final, so an appeal under Rule 45 was not proper - instead

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    206 views2 pages

    Manungas V Loreto

    Uploaded by

    Tey Torrente
    This case involves a dispute over the estate of Engracia Manungas. Diosdado Manungas claims to be the illegitimate son of Florentino Manungas, and thus an heir to Engracia's estate. However, Margarita Avila Loreto and Florencia Parreo oppose Diosdado's petition to be appointed administrator, arguing he is not a qualified heir or creditor. The RTC initially appointed Parreo as administrator but later revoked this and appointed Diosdado instead. Parreo and Loreto appealed this order to the CA. The Supreme Court ruled the RTC order was interlocutory in nature rather than final, so an appeal under Rule 45 was not proper - instead

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    MANUNGAS v MARGARITA LORETO & FLORENCIA AVILA PARREO

    G.R. 193161; August 22, 2011

    Facts:

    Spouses Florentino and Engracia Manungas, childless, adopted Samuel David Avila in 1968. Florentino
    died intestate in 1977 while Avila predeceased her mother and was survived by his wife Sarah Abarte
    Vda. de Manungas. Engracia then filed a Motion for Partition of Estate in the intestate estate
    proceedings of Florentino, of which she was the administratrix, declaring that there are no other legal
    and compulsory heirs except for herself, Avila and a Ramon Manungas, natural son of Florentino. Avilas
    widow Sarah renounced her rights over the property of her husband in favor of Engracia. Thus, the
    properties of the estate were distributed to Engracia and Ramon.

    In 1995, RTC Panabo City appointed Florencia Parreo, niece of Engracia, as the Judicial Guardian of the
    properties and person of her incompetent aunt. Through Parreo, Engracia filed a case of illegal detainer
    and damages against Spouses Diosdado Manungas and Milagros Pacifico before the MTC. Spouses
    Salinas however claimed that Diosdado is the illegitimate son of Florentino. However, their answer was
    filed beyond the reglementary period; hence, MTC issued a summary judgment in favor of Engracia. RTC
    affirmed MTCs decision. They then appealed to the Supreme Court but the petition was also denied by
    the High court for having been filed out of time.

    Diosdado then filed a petition for issuance of letters of administration over the Estate of Engracia
    Manungas in his favor alleging that he is an heir of Engracia, for being an illegitimate son of Florentino.
    The petition was opposed by Margarita Avila Loreto and Florencia Parreo averring that Diosdado is not
    qualified to be an administrator as he was not an heir or a creditor of Engracia or her estate. In fact, he
    was a debtor of the estate. RTC then appointed Parreo as the administrator. But upon motion for
    reconsideration filed by Diosdado, RTC, in an order dated November 4, 2002, reversed itself and ordered
    the revocation of its earlier appointment of Parreo and instead appointed Diosdado as the Special
    administrator. Parreo and Loreto appealed the ruling of the RTC to the CA. CA then reinstated Parreo.
    Diosdado, however, contested that Parreo should have appealed the RTC order to the CA through a
    petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not a .

    Issue:
    Whether or not the RTC order dated November 4, 2002 is an interlocutory order.

    Ruling:
    YES, the RTC order is clearly an interlocutory order. The appointment of a special administrator is an
    interlocutory or preliminary order to the main case for the grant of letters of administration in a testate
    or intestate proceeding. As such, the order cannot be the subject of an appeal under Rule 45. The
    proper remedy is the filing of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 which was what the respondents
    availed of. Generally, a motion for reconsideration is required before a decision may appealed thru a
    petition for certiorari under Rule 65. However, a petition for certiorari will lie without prior filing of a
    motion for reconsideration where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is
    involved. The instant case is clearly an exception to the general rule since the issues raised by
    respondents in appealing the order dated November 4, 2002 are only questions of law. Hence, there is
    no need for motion for reconsideration.

    You might also like