Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JOHNSON, J.:
FACTS:
1. On April 4, 1923, Saturnino Fule died intestate. On
July 2, one of his heirs, Ciriaco Fule, presented a
petition in the CFI of Laguna for the appointment of
Cornelio Alcantara as special administrator of
Saturninos estate.
2. Petitioner Ciriaco alleged that at the time of death,
the deceased was the owner of real and personal
property in San Pablo, Laguna amounting to P50,000
with a rental value of about P8,000. In addition, he
also left P30,000 in cash.
3. The lower court then appointed Alcantara as special
administrator.
4. On July 31, the children of Saturnino opposed
through a motion alleging that: (a) they were all of
age and, (b) that they opposed the appointment of
an administrator on the ground that the deceased
had left no debts and that his property had already
been partitioned among his children during his
lifetime in conformity with article 1056 of the Civil
Code, (c) that the special administrator had taken
possession of property of large value belonging to
them, and had thereby deprived them of their
means of livelihood, and prayed that the order
appointing a special administrator be denied.
5. Petitioner then prayed for the motion of the
oppositors to be denied alleging that the latter had
been requested to make a partition of the property
of the deceased; there was no partition of the
property and that, the disputed property described
in Exhibit A was his exclusive and absolute property
in quiet, public and exclusive possession as owner
for more than 40 years.
6. On August 15 the lower court revoked the
appointment of special administrator and ordered
him to render an account. The appointment of an
administrator was then denied and the court
recommended that petitioner amend his petition
within 30 days from this date and present an
ordinary action for partition.
7. On September 5 petitioner excepted to said order
and presented a motion for reconsideration or new
trial and prayed that the court declare without effect
said August 15 order and proceed to the
appointment of an ordinary administrator who
should present a project of partition for approval.
8. On September 11, oppositors opposed upon the
ground that the judgment of August 15 had become
final and non-appealable.
9. On September 17, the lower court annulled and set
aside the August 15 order, which granted to