Co Ho v. Abeto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Sy Oa instituted intestate proceedings for the estate of the deceased Kaw Singco, alleging he was a resident of Manila at the time of his death in China on January 20, 1921. The respondent judge appointed Sy Oa as administratrix. Procedural History: Sy Oa filed a petition for the examination of Co Ho regarding properties of the deceased in Co Ho's possession. The respondent judge granted this petition. Co Ho moved to declare the judge incompetent, asserting Kaw Singco was a resident of Bato, Camarines Sur, not Manila. The judge denied Co Ho's motion and reiterated the order for examination, stating Co Ho was a stranger to the proceedings. Co Ho excepted to this order, filed a record on appeal, and deposited an appeal bond. The respondent judge disapproved the record on appeal, deeming the order interlocutory and Co Ho without interest in the proceedings. The Petition: Co Ho filed an original petition for mandamus to compel the respondent judge to approve and certify his record on appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the order of the respondent judge dated June 4, 1940, is appealable. Whether the petition for mandamus is the proper remedy.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus is granted. The respondent judge is ordered to approve and certify the petitioner's record on appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appealability of the order: The Court held that the order of June 4, 1940, declaring the respondent judge competent to try the intestate proceedings and ordering the examination of the petitioner, constitutes a final determination of the petitioner's right not to be examined for lack of jurisdiction. While section 123 of the Code of Civil Procedure generally prohibits appeals from interlocutory orders, this does not necessarily apply to probate proceedings, especially given section 783 which allows appeals from orders that constitute a final determination of the rights of the parties. The Court cited Dais vs. Garduño and Altavas in support of this exception for probate proceedings. Furthermore, section 603 of the Code of Civil Procedure explicitly states that the jurisdiction assumed by a Court of First Instance in settlement of an estate, based on residence or location of property, can only be contested in an appeal from the original case or when want of jurisdiction appears on the record. The order compelling examination is also capable of enforcement without further order, making it appealable. On the propriety of mandamus: Given that the order of June 4, 1940, was determined to be appealable, and the respondent judge improperly disapproved the record on appeal, mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the judge to perform his ministerial duty of approving and certifying the record on appeal. The petitioner, Co Ho, has a legal interest in the order, particularly as the properties in question were under his possession and administration, thus entitling him to appeal. The Court reiterated the principle that any order, judgment, or decree of a probate court that is capable of being enforced without further order may be appealed from, citing Woerner and Mallory v. Wheeler.
Main Doctrine
An order of the respondent judge declaring himself competent to try intestate proceedings and ordering the examination of a party constitutes a final determination of that party's right not to be examined for lack of jurisdiction, and is therefore appealable. A petition for mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the approval and certification of the record on appeal.