SOTERO A. PUNONGBAYAN, petitioner v. DANILO G. PUNONGBAYAN, respondent.

GR. No. 156842 2004, Dec 10 PUNO, J.

Sobere

SUBJECT MATTER: Powers and duties of executors and administrators; restrictions on powers – Rule 81, 83-85

DOCTRINE: An order denying or granting a motion directing an executor or administrator to render an accounting
under Rule 85, Sec 5, in relation to Rule 87, Sec 7, is an interlocutory order which is properly assailed through a Rule
65 petition for certiorari.

ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT: Petition for review

SUMMARY:
Respondent Danilo Punongbayan, nephew of the deceased Escolastica Punongbayan-Paguio, was appointed co-
administrator of the intestate estate. However, intestate proceedings were left dormant for 20 years, hence petitioner
Sotero Punongbayan, who is one of the surviving brothers and an heir of the deceased, filed a motion with the
intestate court to require Danilo to render an accounting, which was granted.

After years of proceedings following Danilo’s refusal to comply with the order of the intestate court, Sotero was also
appointed co-administrator. Danilo, the very next day, filed a motion under Rule 85, Sec 5, in relation to Rule 87, Sec
7, to require Sotero to first render an accounting before Danilo could himself render an accounting, alleging that
Sotero had made illegal sales of parts of the estate which made it difficult to comply with the order. This was denied
by the intestate court and so Danilo filed a petition for certiorari under rule 65 to assail the denial.

The CA granted Danilo’s special civil action; ordered Sotero to render an accounting of all the properties and monies
belonging to the estate that came into his possession and to deposit with the probate court the proceeds of the sale
of the estate properties. Hence, Sotero’s petition for review.

Whether the intestate court’s Sept 15, 2000 Order was a final order which should have been appealed by
respondent Danilo, or an interlocutory one which was properly assailed in a petition for certiorari with the CA
on the ground of grave abuse of discretion? – INTERLOCUTORY.
Sept 15, 2000 Order, which denied respondent's motion for petitioner to render an accounting, was an interlocutory
order.
 Motion was filed under--
 Rule 85, Sec 8: Every executor or administrator shall render an account of his administration within
one (1) year from the time of receiving letters testamentary or of administration, unless the court
otherwise directs because of extensions of time for presenting claims against, or paying the debts
of, the estate, or of disposing of the estate; and he shall render such further accounts as the court
may require until the estate is wholly settled.
 Rule 87, Sec 7: The court, on complaint of an executor or administrator, may cite a person
entrusted by an executor or administrator with any part of the estate of the deceased to appear
before it, and may require such person to render a full account, on oath, of the money, goods,
chattels, bonds, accounts, or other papers belonging to such estate as came to his possession in
trust for such executor or administrator, and of his proceedings thereon; and if a person so cited
refuses to appear to render such account, the court may punish him for contempt as having
disobeyed a lawful order of the court.
 Intestate court denied the motion on the ground that it was premature considering that petitioner Sotero has
been co-administrator for only 1 day at the time it was filed.
 Hence, petitioner Sotero’s accountability as co-administrator was in no way settled as it did not
preclude or forestall future accountings by him which, under said Sec. 8, he is obliged to render
within 1 year from receiving letters of administration, or as required by the court until the estate is
settled.
 Neither an accounting or an examination of petitioner Sotero under Section 7, Rule 87, definitely
settle the issue of his alleged illegal transfers and lease since a proceeding under this section is
merely in the nature of fact-finding inquiries.
 RTC Cagayan De Oro, which has jurisdiction over the administration and settlement of the estate, has
limited jurisdiction and is without authority to resolve issues of ownership with finality especially when third
persons are involved.
o Separate actions should be instituted by the administrator for the purpose.

BC2025 | LAW 174 | BAUTISTA

Whether the CA erred in granting respondent Danilo’s writ of certiorari? – YES.
CA erred in granting the writ of certiorari. Respondent Danilo was not entitled to the writ of certiorari erroneously
issued by the CA. Certiorari, being an equitable remedy, will not issue where the petitioner is in bad faith.
 The motion was just another ploy of respondent Danilo to delay his compliance with the court's Order
directing him to render an accounting of his administration of the estate and to turn over the certificates of
placement of the proceeds from the sales of estate properties amounting to millions of pesos, which has
long become final and executory, as affirmed by the CA and SC.
 The ground resurrected by respondent Danilo in the motion, that petitioner Sotero should be made to
account first for the alleged illegal transfers of estate properties made by him, was already passed upon and
rejected by the CA:
 CA: (1) Sotero has already initiated cases for the annulment of the said sales . . . hence, the
intestate court will be barred from entertaining and resolving the same controversies by the
principle of lis pendens, and (2) questions of title to real property cannot be determined in testate or
intestate proceedings.
 The issue of petitioner Sotero’s alleged illegal transfers are, in fact, pending before the RTC of Malolos,
Bulacan where cases for their annulment have been filed by respondent Danilo.
 Danilo already admitted that they involve the same properties.
 Hence, no more reason for Danilo to further delay the accounting of his administration of the estate.

ANTECEDENT FACTS:
 [Background] Escolastica Punongbayan-Paguio died intestate  left behind properties in Misamis Oriental,
Iligan City, and Bulacan; and survived by husband Miguel Paguio, brothers Nicolas (deceased) and Sotero
(petitioner), sisters Leonila and Leonora (deceased); nephews Danilo (respondent), Restituto, Perfecto, and
Alfredo, and nieces Brigida, Lilia, Marilou, Adeluisa, and Grace, who were the children of Escolastica's
brother, Perfecto Punongbayan, Sr., who predeceased her.
 [Estate settlement proceedings] Proceedings for the settlement of her estate were initiated in CFI Misamis
Oriental  Husband Miguel Paguio was appointed administrator and later, DANILO, as co-administrator
to represent the interests of the Punongbayan family.
o Above-mentioned heirs executed a compromise agreement distributing among themselves the
estate of Escolastica (41 parcels of land); and likewise authorized the administrator to sell 5 parcels
of land to pay the liabilities of the estate.
o Intestate court approved the agreement on June 7, 1976.
o However, intestate proceedings were left dormant from 1976-1993.
 1994: Sotero, Leonila and Leonora (both now deceased) moved for the immediate distribution of the estate
in accordance with the Compromise Agreement of 1974  asked that Danilo be ordered to deposit the
proceeds from the sales of estate properties with the Clerk of Court and to render an accounting of his
administration for the past 20 years.
o Intestate court granted the motion and directed Danilo to:
 Effect the immediate distribution of the Estate in accordance with the Compromise
Agreement;
 Deposit with the Clerk of Court the proceeds of the sale of whatever properties were
already sold; and
 Render an accounting of his administration of the estate for the last 20 years or from the
time he assumed as administrator up to the present, within 60 days from receipt of this
Order.
 Respondent Danilo assailed the order in a special civil action for certiorari with the CA.
o CA: Dismissed.
o SC: Dismissed.
 After decision became final and executory, writ of execution was issued by the intestate court on Mar 30,
1998  served upon Danilo’s wife but not upon Danilo himself as he was always absent from his residence
and place of work whenever the sheriff came to serve the writ.
o Warrant of arrest was issued against him.
o Danilo filed an urgent motion to recall the warrant  denied.
o Danilo assailed the order in a petition for certiorari before the CA.
 During the pendency of the petition, Danilo was arrested but was later on released from
custody by the CA upon his manifestation that he will comply with the intestate court's writ

BC2025 | LAW 174 | BAUTISTA

 of execution, and that he will attend the next hearing to submit the certificates of
placement of the proceeds from the sales.
 Danilo did not appear during said hearing.
o CA: Recalled his release and order and directed the NBI to arrest him.
o CA: Dismissed the petition for utter lack of merit; that Danilo’s clear and contumacious refusal to
obey the intestate court's writ of execution for several years should no longer be countenanced.
 Sotero moved for his appointment as co-administrator:
o that Danilo failed to discharge his duties as administrator, to render an accounting of his
administration, and to turn over P25,000,000.00 in proceeds from the sales of a substantial portion
of the estate, as required in the Order.
 Motion granted. Sotero took his oath as co-administrator of the estate.
 Danilo filed a “Motion to Order Sotero Punongbayan to Render an Accounting”:
o that Sotero appropriated 5 lots of the estate to the exclusion of other heirs,
o that 2 of the 5 lots were illegally sold to 3rd persons while 2 others were illegally transferred in his
own name; and
o that the 5th lot was leased to a third person without turning over lease rentals to the estate.
o that he encountered difficulties in rendering an accounting of estate income and properties because
of the illegal sales and lease made by Sotero.
o that Danilo should be made to account 9rst for the income derived from such illegal transfers and
lease before he (Danilo) could render the full accounting required by the intestate court.
 Motion denied. Danilo filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus with CA.
 CA: Granted Danilo’s special civil action; ordered Sotero to render an accounting of all the properties and
monies belonging to the estate that came into his possession and to deposit with the probate court the
proceeds of the sale of the estate properties.
 Hence, Sotero’s petition for review.

Whether the intestate court’s Sept 15, 2000 Order was a final order which should have been appealed by
respondent Danilo, or an interlocutory one which was properly assailed in a petition for certiorari with the
CA on the ground of grave abuse of discretion? – INTERLOCUTORY.
Denial of respondent Danilo's motion for petitioner Sotero to render an accounting is an interlocutory order
not subject to appeal but may be challenged before a superior court through a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65.

RULE:
 When is a court order final and executory? If it puts an end to the particular matter resolved, or settles
definitely the matter therein disposed of, such that no further questions can come before the court except
the execution of the order.
 When is it merely interlocutory? If it is provisional and leaves substantial proceeding to be had in
connection with its subject.

ITCAB:
Sept 15, 2000 Order, which denied respondent's motion for petitioner to render an accounting, was an
interlocutory order.
 Motion was filed under--
 Rule 85, Sec 8: Every executor or administrator shall render an account of his administration
within one (1) year from the time of receiving letters testamentary or of administration, unless the
court otherwise directs because of extensions of time for presenting claims against, or paying the
debts of, the estate, or of disposing of the estate; and he shall render such further accounts as
the court may require until the estate is wholly settled.
 Rule 87, Sec 7: The court, on complaint of an executor or administrator, may cite a person
entrusted by an executor or administrator with any part of the estate of the deceased to appear
before it, and may require such person to render a full account, on oath, of the money, goods,
chattels, bonds, accounts, or other papers belonging to such estate as came to his possession in
trust for such executor or administrator, and of his proceedings thereon; and if a person so cited
refuses to appear to render such account, the court may punish him for contempt as having
disobeyed a lawful order of the court.
 Intestate court denied the motion on the ground that it was premature considering that petitioner Sotero
has been co-administrator for only 1 day at the time it was filed.

BC2025 | LAW 174 | BAUTISTA

  Hence, petitioner Sotero’s accountability as co-administrator was in no way settled as it did not
preclude or forestall future accountings by him which, under said Sec. 8, he is obliged to render
within 1 year from receiving letters of administration, or as required by the court until the estate is
settled.
 Neither an accounting or an examination of petitioner Sotero under Section 7, Rule 87, definitely
settle the issue of his alleged illegal transfers and lease since a proceeding under this section is
merely in the nature of fact-finding inquiries.
 Intended to elicit information or evidence relative to estate properties.
 RTC Cagayan De Oro, which has jurisdiction over the administration and settlement of the estate, has
limited jurisdiction and is without authority to resolve issues of ownership with finality especially when third
persons are involved.
 Separate actions should be instituted by the administrator for the purpose.
Whether the CA erred in granting respondent Danilo’s writ of certiorari? – YES.
CA erred in granting the writ of certiorari. Respondent Danilo was not entitled to the writ of certiorari
erroneously issued by the CA. Certiorari, being an equitable remedy, will not issue where the petitioner is in
bad faith.

RULE:
Certiorari (Rule 65): where a grave abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of jurisdiction is clearly
shown. The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is
exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility.

ITCAB:
 The motion was just another ploy of respondent Danilo to delay his compliance with the court's Order
directing him to render an accounting of his administration of the estate and to turn over the certificates of
placement of the proceeds from the sales of estate properties amounting to millions of pesos, which has
long become final and executory, as affirmed by the CA and SC.
 The ground resurrected by respondent Danilo in the motion, that petitioner Sotero should be made to
account first for the alleged illegal transfers of estate properties made by him, was already passed upon
and rejected by the CA:
 CA: (1) Sotero has already initiated cases for the annulment of the said sales . . . hence, the
intestate court will be barred from entertaining and resolving the same controversies by the
principle of lis pendens, and (2) questions of title to real property cannot be determined in testate
or intestate proceedings.
 The issue of petitioner Sotero’s alleged illegal transfers are, in fact, pending before the RTC of Malolos,
Bulacan where cases for their annulment have been filed by respondent Danilo.
 Danilo already admitted that they involve the same properties.
 Hence, no more reason for Danilo to further delay the accounting of his administration of the
estate.

DISPOSITIVE: IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated August 9, 2002 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63002, as well as its Resolution dated January 14, 2003, are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The Order dated September 15, 2000 of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 19, in
Special Proceedings No. 1053 is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.

BC2025 | LAW 174 | BAUTISTA