Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

FIFTH (5th) DIVISION

IN RE: SETTLEMENT OF CA-G.R. CV No. 123400

ESTATE OF THE DECEASED
MARIA TERESA REYES LUZ, Members:

JOSE PIO LUZ, CRUZ, R.A., Chairperson,

Petitioner-Appellee, PAYOYO-VILLORDON, T.M.B., and
SAN GASPAR-GITO, E.L., JJ.
- versus -
Promulgated:
MARY ANN R. LUZ, MAY 28, 2025
Oppositor-Appellant.

x–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––x

DECISION

Cruz, R.A., J.:

THE CASE

This is an appeal from the Order1 dated August 3, 2023 of the

Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 149 (“RTC”), in SP Case
No. R-MKT-17-03660-SP, the decretal portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered,

the prayer of oppositor Mary Ann Luz for issuance of
Letters of Administration is hereby DENIED.

In order not to further delay the early resolution of

the Settlement of the Intestate Estate of the Deceased
Maria Teresa Reyes Luz, any other heir of the deceased
who wishes to be granted Letters of Administration may
file the necessary petition, under Rule 79 of the Revised
Rules of Court, within ten (10) days from notice hereof.

SO ORDERED. (Emphasis on the original)

CA-G.R. CV No. 123400 Page 2 of 8
DECISION

THE ANTECEDENTS

On October 24, 2017, Jose Pio Luz (“Jose”) filed a Petition for
Settlement of Estate of the deceased Maria Teresa Reyes Luz
(deceased “Teresa”) and Issuance of Letters of Administration.

On February 5, 2018, Mary Ann Luz (“Mary Ann”) filed a

Comment/Opposition to the said petition. She also prayed for her
appointment as the regular administrator of the estate of deceased
Teresa.

In its January 17, 2023 Order, the RTC denied Jose’s petition.

On February 16, 2023, Jose filed a Comment/Opposition to Mary

Ann’s application for appointment as regular administrator.

The RTC conducted a hearing on Mary Ann’s application, and

gathered the following factual background:

Oppositor Mary substantially testified on direct that she is

the sister of the deceased Teresa; petitioner Jose is her brother;
she filed an opposition to petitioner Jose’s application for letters of
administration because she is the best qualified to be appointed as
administrator of the estate left by her sister Teresa; she has all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided by law;
based on her educational background and work experience, she
had the managerial skills to act as administrator; she substituted
the decedent in a case as a plaintiff against the petitioner to protect
their rights in their corporation; and she is willing to post the
requisite bond, as a condition to her appointment as administrator
of the estate of the deceased Teresa.

On cross-examination, oppositor Mary substantially testified

that she has a dual citizenship as she is both Filipino and Canadian
citizens and for this year, it was only on June that she came back to
the Philippines, she was not the administrator of the estate of her
parents she was the President and the CEO of the Rural Bank of
Lobo when it closed; the Rural Bank of Lobo was closed because a
lot of rural banks were closed by the Central Bank due to some
money laundering issues and they wanted to strengthen the rural
banks; she had a loan with the Rural Bank of Lobo but she fully
paid it before the bank was closed; and there are six (6) surviving
siblings of the deceased Teresa.

xxxx
CA-G.R. CV No. 123400 Page 3 of 8
DECISION

On the other hand, in his Comment/Opposition (To the

application for appointment as Regular Administrator of Mary Ann
Reyes Luz), petitioner contends that oppositor Mary is patently
incompetent and untrustworthy to be an administrator for the
following reasons: (a) Mary is out of the country for most part of the
year as she is staying with her family in Canada; (b) even during
the time that Mary was acting as the President and CEO of the
Rural Bank of Lobo, a family-owned bank, several years ago, she
was always absent even during important meetings of the top
officers of the bank; (c) their family-owned bank was tremendously
mismanaged under the stewardship of Mary; (d) petitioner and
other siblings, Marie Rose and Jose Antonio, who were all
stockholders of the Bank, were kept int he dark as to the real
reason/s for the closure of the Bank which constrained them to
seek clarification in a Letter dated 21 January 2015 to the then
Deputy Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (“BSP”); (e) as
proof of Mary’s advancement and self-interest and double-dealing
while still the President and CEO of the Rural Bank of Lobo,
affidavits executed by Gerardo T. Ebrada and Zensia T. Ebrada are
attached to the comment which is connected to a case to whom
Mary asked to obtain loans from the bank under their names on her
behalf; (f) as further proof that oppositor Mary is unfit to serve as an
administrator is a copy of a message of Jose Gerardo or Joji, to his
siblings outlining the many acts of Mary which caused substantial
damage and prejudice to their family; (g) Marie Rose and her
husband, Mark Lotilla, have previously filed a case for Surrender of
Withheld Duplicate Certificates of Title with the RTC of Makati City
against Mary and the latter lost in that case; (h) during the time that
Mary was allowed by their parents at her insistence to manage
some of the family’s businesses and properties, the result was a
disaster because Mary was not paying the real property taxes on
the family’s properties for several years which caused the
imposition of huge penalties and other charges against them to the
damage and prejudice of the family; (i) Mary and her immediate
family obtained substantial loans from some of the businesses of
the family, such as the Rural Bank of Lobo and Taal Xylem
Corporation, which they failed to pay; (j) Mary was sued for Estafa
by numerous buyers of lots owned by Taal Fortress Management
and Development Corporation, also a family-owned corporation
under the management of Mary, with the Office of the Prosecutor of
Antipolo City, Rizal; and (k) Marie Rose, Jose Antonio, and Jose
Gerardo expressed their opposition to the appointment of Mary as
administrator, in the alternative, they are nominating Jose Antonio
to be the administrator of the estate of the deceased Teresa.
(Emphasis on the original)

In the assailed Order,2 the RTC denied Mary Ann’s prayer for
issuance of letters of administration and ordered that for the early
resolution of the settlement of the intestate estate of the deceased
Maria Teresa Reyes Luz, any other heir, who wished to be the
administrator, should file the necessary petition.
CA-G.R. CV No. 123400 Page 4 of 8
DECISION

The RTC ratiocinated that the determination of the competence

and qualification of a person to be the administrator of an estate
depends upon the sound judgment of the court, exercising the power
of appointment. The RTC found that Mary Ann was incompetent to
serve as administrator of the estate of the deceased Teresa based on
the evidence presented by Jose, which clearly showed that she was
not qualified and had questionable integrity.

In its October 5, 2023 Order,3 the RTC denied Mary Ann’s Motion
for Reconsideration.

Dejected, Mary Ann filed a Notice of Appeal,4 which was given

due course by the RTC in its Order dated November 7, 2023.5

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

Oppositor-Appellant Mary Ann assigns the following errors to the

court a quo:

I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED
WHEN IT DID NOT ISSUE THE LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION
TO THE OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT AND BASED ITS DECISION
ON THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT DOES NOT PROVE THAT
OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT IS NOT QUALIFIED TO BECOME AN
ADMINISTRATOR; AND

II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ERRED
WHEN IT DENIED THE PRAYER OF THE OPPOSITOR-
APPELLANT TO BECOME THE ADMINISTRATOR BECAUSE
HER APPLICATION WAS JUST EMBODIED IN HER COMMENT
AND OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION OF PETITIONER-
APPELLEE.

Oppositor-Appellant thumbs down that RTC in denying her

prayer for the issuance of letters of administration in the assailed
Order6 dated August 3, 2023. She argues that: (a) the pieces of
evidence presented by Petitioner-Appellee Jose do not render her
integrity to manage the estate of the deceased questionable; and (b)
the court a quo can still take cognizance of her application as a regular
administrator of the estate although she did not file a petition to that
effect and that her prayer was only included in her
Comment/Opposition to the petition of her brother Jose.
CA-G.R. CV No. 123400 Page 5 of 8
DECISION

Petitioner-Appellee Jose, on the other hand, stands firm that

Mary Ann is unfit to serve as the regular administrator of the estate of
deceased Teresa. The RTC was in the best position to determine who
is competent to become an administrator of an estate and, in this case,
it sufficiently determined that Mary Ann is unfit to be such, on the basis
of the evidence, which he presented before it.

OUR RULING

On procedural nicety, We dismiss the appeal because Oppositor-

Appellant failed to perfect her appeal in accordance with Section 2(a)
and Section 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.

To recall, Oppositor-Appellant Mary Ann assails the RTC Order,7

denying her prayer for the issuance of letters of administration.

The rule is multiple appeals are permitted in special proceedings

as a practical recognition of the possibility that material issues may be
finally determined at various stages of the special proceedings.8 To be
sure, the case of Uy v. The Honorable Court of Appeals9 citing Sioca v.
Garcia emphasizes that the determination of a person's suitability for
the office of administrator is the proper subject of an appeal, which
judgment will not be interfered with on appeal unless it appears
affirmatively that the court below was in error. In that case, the court
likewise found that the appellant was unsuitable to be appointed as the
regular administrator of the estate of the deceased. To boot, the case
of Republic v. Nishina10 citing Zayco v. Hinlo, Jr. also pronounces that
an order with respect to the appointment of 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. Hence, said order is final and
appealable.

It bears stressing, however, that an appeal is merely a statutory

or reglementary right, availed of only by following strictly what the
statute or the regulation states as to the mode and timing of taking it. 11
It is neither a natural nor a constitutional right, but only statutory, and
the implication of its statutory character is that the party who intends to
appeal must always comply with the procedures and rules governing
appeals, or else the right of appeal may be lost or squandered.12

The relevant provisions in the Rules of Court are clear as crystal

CA-G.R. CV No. 123400 Page 6 of 8
DECISION

as regards the required mode and timing of taking an appeal in special

proceedings:

Rules of Court, Rule 41, Section 2(a):

Section 2. Modes of Appeal. – (a) Ordinary Appeal. – The appeal to

the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court
in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a
notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final
order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse
party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special
proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals
where law on these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on
appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.

Rules of Court, Rule 41, Section 3:

Section 3. Period of ordinary appeal. – The appeal shall be taken

within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed
from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall
file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within 30 days
from notice of the judgment or final order. The period of appeal
shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or
reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a motion for
new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed.

It is obvious from the foregoing that while it is not necessary that

a notice of appeal and a record on appeal be filed simultaneously, the
rule remains unequivocal that the notice of appeal and record on
appeal shall be filed within 30 days from notice of the judgment or
final order. The ostensible reason for requiring a record on appeal
instead of just a notice of appeal is the multi-part nature of nearly all
special proceedings, with each part susceptible of being finally
determined and terminated independently of the other parts. An appeal
by notice of appeal is a mode that envisions the elevation of the
original records to the appellate court as to thereby obstruct the trial
court in its further proceedings regarding the other parts of the case. In
contrast, the record on appeal enables the trial court to continue with
the rest of the case because the original records remain with the trial
court even as it affords to the appellate court the full opportunity to
review and decide the appealed matter.13 A violation of the
aforementioned requirements for the timely perfection of an appeal by
record on appeal is certainly a ground for the dismissal of the appeal.14

A thorough examination of Our records reveal that Oppositor-

Appellant Mary Ann only filed a Notice of Appeal dated October 31,
2023, which was approved by the RTC in its Order dated November 7,
CA-G.R. CV No. 123400 Page 7 of 8
DECISION

2023, and failed to file the required record on appeal. It is not amiss to
state that the RTC even ordered that the entire records of the case be
forwarded to Us.

Since Oppositor-Appellant did not file the record on appeal in

accordance with Section 2(a) and Section 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of
Court, her appeal from the Order dated August 3, 2023 has not been
perfected. The perfection of the appeal within the prescribed period is
mandatory and jurisdictional, and any failure to perfect the same
renders the Order final and beyond review on appeal.15 Therefore,
such failure to file in due time rendered the assailed Order of the RTC
final and unappealable, and, concomitantly, We have no jurisdiction to
review the same.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby

DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
RAMON A. CRUZ
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED
TITA MARILYN B. PAYOYO-VILLORDON
Associate Justice

ORIGINAL SIGNED
EMILY L. SAN GASPAR-GITO
Associate Justice
CA-G.R. CV No. 123400 Page 8 of 8
DECISION

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is

hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
RAMON A. CRUZ
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Fifth Division

1 Rollo, Penned by Presiding Judge Juan Jose P. Enriquez III, pp. 26-31.
2 Id.
3 Id., pp. 13-14.
4 Id., pp.15-19.
5 Id., p. 22.
6 Supra at note 1.
7 Id.
8 Aranas v. Mercado, G.R. No. 156407, January 15, 2014.
9 G.R. No. 167979, March 15, 2006.
10 G.R. No. 186053, November 15, 2010.
11 Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Villareal, G.R. No. 181182, April 10, 2013.
12 Spouses Lebin v. Mirasol, G.R. No. 164255, September 7, 2011.
13 Brual v. Contreras, G.R. No. 205451, March 7, 2022.
14 Chipongian v. Benitez-Lirio, G.R. No. 162692, August 26, 2015.
15 Id.