Hinlo v. Hinlo Digest

G.R. No. 170243 April 16, 2008 

Facts of the Case: 

Enrique Hinlo died intestate in 1986. His heirs, herein petitioners filed for letters of administration where the widow Ceferina was initially appointed as special administrator but was eventually replaced by Nancy Zayco and Remo Hinlo (as co-admin) due ot the illness of their mother.

In 2003, respondent Atty. Hinlo, the grandson of the deceased filed for a petition of issuance of letters in his favor and for the removal of the petitioners. This was opposed by the petitioners. The lower court revoked the appointment of the petitioners and issued letters of administration in favor of respondent wherein he was also required to file a bond.

The petitioners received the copy of the decision dated July 23 on August 2, 2002. They then file a Motion for reconsideration on August 9. The lower court (RTC) denied their motion in an order dated July 23, 2003. The petitioners received their copy of this decision on July 31, 2003 and submitted their record on appeal on the 29th of August 2003. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the notice on appeal/record on appeal on the ground that the July 23 orders are interlocutory and not subject to appeal, and that they were also filed late. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition for mandamus and affirmed RTC decision that the appeal was filed late.

Issue: Whether or not the July 23 orders are interlocutory

NO.

 (1)The July 23 orders are not interlocutory but final orders hence, are appealable. The order appointing an administrator of a deceased person's estate is a final determination of the rights of the parties in connection with the administration, management and settlement of the decedent’s estate.

(2) In appeals in special proceedings, a record on appeal is required. Both the notice and record should be field within the 30-day period from the receipt of the order denying the motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. Hence, the petitioner has until August 30 to file the appeal, so their appeals  was made on time. The CA decision was reversed and set aside. Petition is granted.