Garcia v. Flores
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Martin Garcia married Hilaria Pordesimo, and they had six children. Martin Garcia died intestate in 1904, leaving his widow and children. In 1912, the heirs executed an extrajudicial partition of Martin Garcia's properties. Hilaria died intestate in 1924. In 1949, approximately thirty-seven years after the extrajudicial partition, one of the heirs, Paula Garcia, filed Civil Case No. 38 for partition of real and personal properties and damages, referring to the same estate previously partitioned. Procedural History: In 2004, plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 38 filed an unverified petition for the appointment of an administrator or receiver, which was denied by the trial court. A motion for reconsideration was also denied. Subsequently, Ciriaco Garcia, a defendant, filed a motion for a bill of particulars and production of documents, which was granted. Ciriaco then filed another motion for the appointment of an administrator, which was granted without opposition due to the co-defendants' failure to receive timely notice. The respondents moved to set aside this order, arguing lack of notice and that the issue of administrator appointment had already been decided. The trial court reconsidered and set aside the order appointing an administrator. The court also set aside its order granting the motion for a bill of particulars and denied Ciriaco's motion for striking out allegations and judgment on the pleadings. Ciriaco's motion for reconsideration of these orders was denied. The Petition: Ciriaco P. Garcia filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking to nullify the trial court's orders setting aside the appointment of an administrator and the order granting the bill of particulars, and to compel the trial court to allow the administrator to resume his duties and to strike out certain pleadings and render judgment on the pleadings.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside its order appointing an administrator. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in setting aside its order granting the motion for a bill of particulars. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to strike out pleadings and for judgment on the pleadings.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appointment of an administrator: The Court held that an order appointing a special administrator or a receiver is interlocutory in nature. The court making the appointment retains control over it and may modify, rescind, or revoke the same on sufficient grounds at any time before final judgment. Such an order is not appealable because it is interlocutory. Therefore, the respondent Judge not only had jurisdiction but also the authority to revoke his order appointing Orbase as administrator in the exercise of his sound discretion. The prior denial of a similar motion did not preclude the court from reconsidering its subsequent order appointing an administrator, especially when the appointment was made without proper opposition due to lack of notice. On the bill of particulars: The Court found that the trial court was justified in setting aside its order granting the motion for a bill of particulars. The order was improvidently issued on the erroneous assumption that the respondents were duly notified of the hearing. Furthermore, a defendant is generally not the proper party to ask for a bill of particulars from co-defendants; this right typically belongs to the plaintiffs. Ciriaco's motion was also filed belatedly, almost five years after the answers were filed, and without explanation for the delay, violating the ten-day period prescribed by Rule 16, Section 1 of the Rules of Court for such motions. On the motion to strike pleadings and for judgment on the pleadings: The Court found no error in the denial of the motion to strike out pleadings signed by Atty. Sison, as he could have been authorized to sign for the counsel of record, Atty. Duran. Regarding the motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court noted that the answers filed by the defendants tendered issues and specifically denied material allegations of the complaint. For instance, the nature of the children's filiation and the existence of an extrajudicial partition were disputed, preventing a judgment on the pleadings.
Main Doctrine
An order appointing a special administrator or a receiver is interlocutory in nature and the court retains control over it, with the power to modify, rescind, or revoke the same on sufficient grounds at any time before final judgment. Such an order is not appealable.