FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235858. April 4, 2018.]
DANTE BITAS MAGSINO, VICENTA BITAS MAGSINO, MARIO BITAS MAGSINO, RUPERTA BITAS ABANICO, NERI ABANICO GOROSPE, REPRESENTED BY DANTE BITAS MAGSINO, petitioners,vs. RAUL MALIGAYA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 4, 2018which reads as follows: SDTIaE
"G.R. No. 235858 — DANTE BITAS MAGSINO, VICENTA BITAS MAGSINO, MARIO BITAS MAGSINO, RUPERTA BITAS ABANICO, NERI ABANICO GOROSPE, REPRESENTED BY DANTE BITAS MAGSINO, Petitioners, v. RAUL MALIGAYA, Respondent. — The petitioners' motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
The Court further resolves to DENY the present petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision dated April 20, 2017 and Resolution dated November 23, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 143334 for failure of the petitioners to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution.
The present petition raises the sole issue of whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave error in sustaining the October 3, 2014 Resolution and August 26, 2015 Order of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14 of Nasugbu, Batangas in Civil Case No. 894, probate of will case, which denied petitioners' omnibus motion for Raul Maligaya's removal as administrator of the deceased Dr. Apolonio Maligaya Bitas's estate and executor of his holographic will, full accounting, and appointment of independent auditor. From the foregoing, the petitioners are asking the Court to reassess the evidence on record to determine if the facts of the case and the evidence presented warrant the removal of the respondent as aforesaid administrator and executor. This is not allowed in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 where only questions of law may be raised. 1 Verily, this rule is subject to the exceptions laid down in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Traders Royal Bank, 2 where the Court may nonetheless review the factual findings of the lower courts. 3 However, the present petition does not allege any circumstance that makes the case fall in any one of these exceptions.
In any event, from a review of the case's record, the Court agrees with the appellate court's finding that the assailed RTC resolution and order are both supported by substantial evidence. aScITE
It is settled that the probate court has ample discretion whether or not to remove an administrator that it has previously appointed. That any sufficient ground for an administrator's removal exists must be determined by the probate court whose sensibilities are, in the first place, affected by any act or omission on the part of the administrator not conformable to or in disregard of the rules or the orders of the court. As a rule, higher courts will not interfere with the probate court's action on an administrator's removal unless positive error or gross abuse of discretion is shown. 4
Further, the probate court may only remove its appointed administrator based on sufficient grounds and, more importantly, evidence justifying the removal. The party seeking for an administrator's removal must show an act or omission on the part of the administrator not conformable to or in disregard of the rules or the orders of the court which it deems sufficient or substantial to warrant the removal of the administrator. 5 The petitioners in this case failed to discharge this burden of proof.
SO ORDERED." SERENO, C.J., on leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Carbonell v. Carbonnel-Mendes, 762 Phil. 529, 536 (2015).
2. 642 Phil. 547 (2010).
3. The Court held in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Traders Royal Bank (id. at 556-557), "Nevertheless, in several cases, the Court enumerated the exceptions to the rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on the Court: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion."
4.Matute v. Court of Appeals, 136 Phil. 157, 175-176 (1969).
5.Gabriel v. Court of Appeals, 287 Phil. 459, 468-469 (1992).