PUNONGBAYAN V.

PUNONGBAYAN
from 1976 to 1993. (17 years)
Rule 85 | 10 December 2004 | Puno
o Aug 4, 1994 – SOTERO and his sisters moved
SUMMARY: Danilo Punongbayan, nephew of the deceased, was appointed co- for the immediate distribution of the estate in
administrator of the intestate estate. However, intestate proceedings were left accordance with the Compromise Agreement
dormant for 20 years, hence Sotero Punongbayan, who is one of the surviving and asked that DANILO be ordered to deposit
brothers and an heir of the deceased, filed a motion with the intestate court to require the proceeds from the sales of estate
Danilo to render an accounting, which was granted. After years of proceedings properties and to render an accounting of his
following Danilo’s refusal to comply with the order of the intestate court, Sotero was administration for the past 20 years.
also appointed co-administrator. Danilo, the very next day, filed a motion under Sec. o Feb 1, 1995 – Intestate court GRANTED the
5, Rule 85, in relation to Sec. 7, Rule 87, to require Sotero to first render an
motion and ordered DANILO to 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 accounting and turn over the proceeds.
order. This was denied by the intestate court and so Danilo filed a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA to assail the denial.
Court of  DANILO assailed the Order in a Rule 65 petition for
DOCTRINE: An order denying or granting a motion directing an executor or Appeals certiorari with the CA which DISMISSED the same.
administrator to render an accounting under Sec. 5, Rule 85, in relation to Sec. 7,
Rule 87, is an interlocutory order which is properly assailed through a Rule 65 petition
for certiorari. Supreme  SC affirmed the dismissal in of the Rule 65 petition.
Court Judgment became final and executory.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Parties Petitioner: Sotero A. Punongbayan Intestate  Mar 30, 1998 – After the decision became final and
Respondent: Danilo G. Punongbayan Court executory, the corresponding writ of execution was
issued by the intestate court.
o The writ was served on his wife because
 Jul 31, 1969 - Escolastica Punongbayan-Paguio died intestate leaving
Danilo was always absent from his place of
considerable properties in Misamis Oriental, Iligan City, and Bulacan.
o She was survived by her husband Miguel Paguio, brothers Nicolas resident or work. A warrant of arrest was
(now deceased) and SOTERO (petitioner), sisters Leonila and Leonora
issued against him. DANILO filed an urgent
(both now deceased); nephews DANILO (respondent), Restituto, motion to recall the warrant which was
Perfecto, and Alfredo, and nieces Brigida, Lilia, Marilou, Adeluisa, and DENIED.
Grace, who were the children of Escolastica’s brother, Perfecto
Punongbayan, Sr., who predeceased her.
CA  Danilo again assailed the denial by Rule 65 with the
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: CA.
 During the pendency of the case, he was arrested but
Intestate  Proceedings for the settlement of her estate were
Court later released upon manifestation that he will comply
initiated in the then CFI of Misamis Oriental, docketed
(CFI of with the writ of execution.
as Special Proceedings No. 1053.
Misamis o Danilo did not appear during the next hearing
o Her husband was appointed administrator and
Oriental) which prompted the CA to recall his release
later, DANILO, as co-administrator.
and direct NBI to arrest him.
 Sep 30, 1974 – The heirs executed a compromise
 Oct 19, 2000 – CA DISMISSED the petition for utter
agreement distributing among themselves the estate
lack of merit, ruling that DANILO’s clear and
consisting of 41 parcels of land in Misamis Oriental,
contumacious refusal to obey the intestate court’s
Iligan City, and Bulacan. The intestate court
writ of execution for several years should no
APPROVED the agreement.
longer be countenanced.
 Intestate proceedings, however, were left dormant
 The motion was filed by DANILO under Section 8, Rule 851
o
Intestate  June 2000 – SOTERO moved for his appointment
and Sec. 7, Rule 872.
Court as co-administrator the grounds that DANILO failed
o Applying Sec. 8, Rule 85, the intestate court denied the
to discharge his duties as administrator, to render an
motion on the ground that it was premature considering
accounting of his administration, and to turn over
that petitioner has been co-administrator for only 1 day
P25,000,000.00 in proceeds from the sales of a
at the time it was filed.
substantial portion of the estate.
o With the denial, SOTERO’s accountability as co-
 Aug 30, 2000 – SOTERO took his oath as co-
administrator administrator was in no way settled as it did not preclude or
forestall future accountings by him under said Sec. 8, Rule
 Sep 1, 2000 – The next day, DANILO filed a "Motion
85.
to Order Sotero Punongbayan to Render an
o Neither an accounting or an examination of SOTERO under
Accounting" alleging that SOTERO appropriated 5
lots to the exclusion of the other heirs, and allegedly Section 7, Rule 87, definitely settle the issue of his alleged
that the sales and lease he made were illegal illegal transfers and lease since a proceeding under this
o DANILO alleged that he encountered section, like that under Sec. 6 of the Rule 87, is merely in
the nature of fact-finding inquiries.
difficulties in rendering an accounting of estate
 The intestate court has limited jurisdiction and is
income and properties because of the illegal
without authority to resolve issues of ownership with
transactions. Hence, SOTERO should be
finality especially when third persons are involved.
made to account first for the income derived
Separate actions should have been instituted by
from said transactions before he (DANILO)
Danilo for this purpose.
could render the full accounting required by
2. Whether the CA erred in granting certiorari – YES.
the intestate court.
 The intestate court correctly denied DANILO’s motion for accounting.
 Sep 15, 2000 - Motion was DENIED in an Order
It is obvious that the motion was just another ploy to delay
compliance with the court’s directing DANILO to render an
CA  Danilo again filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari and accounting, which has long become final and executory.
mandamus with the CA to assail the Order  The issue of the alleged illegal transfers is, in fact, pending before
 The CA GRANTED the petition and nullified and set the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan where cases for their annulment have
aside the Order been filed by DANILO. He admits that they involve the very same
properties in respect to which the motion for accounting was filed.
 Certiorari, being an equitable remedy, will not issue where the
ISSUES & RATIO: petitioner is in bad faith.
1. Whether the intestate court’s Order dated September 15, 2000 was a DISPOSITIVE:
final order which should have been appealed, or an interlocutory IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated
one which was properly assailed in a petition for certiorari – August 9, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63002, as well as
Interlocutory order. its Resolution dated January 14, 2003, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
 A court order is final in character if it puts an end to the particular
matter resolved, or settles definitely the matter therein disposed of, 1
Every executor or administrator shall render an account of his administration within one (1)
such that no further questions can come before the court except the year from the time of receiving letters testamentary or of administration, unless the court
execution of the order. On the other hand, a court order is merely 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
interlocutory if it is provisional and leaves substantial proceeding to the court may require until the estate is wholly settled.
be had in connection with its subject. 2
The court, on complaint of an executor or administrator, may cite a person entrusted by an
 In the instant case, the September 15, 2000 Order was an executor or administrator with any part of the estate of the deceased to appear before it, and
INTERLOCUTORY order. 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.
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.