FERNANDEZ vs.

MARAVILLA, 10 SCRA 589 (1964)

FACTS:
Herminio Maravilla filed a petition for the probate of his wifes will with the CFI. The
wifes siblings filed an opposition on the ground that the will was not signed on each
page by the testator in the presence of the attesting witnesses and of one another.
On his motion, Maravilla was appointed as administrator.
The court denied probate. The siblings then sought the appointment of Eliezar as
co- administrator to protect their interest especially since the will was denied
probate. Maravilla filed an appeal of the decision denying probate. The siblings and
several of the devisees named in the will then sought the annulment of Maravillas
appointment as administrator. The court then appointed Eliezar as co- administrator.
From the above order of appointment of a co- administrator, Maravilla filed with the
CA a petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul said order. The CA then issued a
writ of preliminary injunction. The siblings, et al. filed a petition to certify the case to
the SC as the amount involved exceeds 200,000 and alleged that the preliminary
injuction issued was not in aid of the appellate jurisdiction of the CA as there was
never an appeal on the denial of probate by the CFI. Maravilla contends that the
decision of the probate court is under appeal and as such writ prayed for was in aid
of the appellate jurisdiction and that the amount is less than 200,000 as the
amount to be protected by Eliezars appointment was only 90,000 more or less.
The CA granted the writ of certiorari and prohibition. Hence this appeal.

ISSUE/S:
Whether the CA has appellate jurisdiction over special proceedings.

HELD:
NO. The CA has no appellate jurisdiction as the appointment of Eliezar was only
incidental to the probate proceedings and the value of the estate in question is
more than 200,000 (362,000). Under Section 2, Rule 75, the property to be
administered and liquidated in in/testate proceeding is the entire estate and not
merely the part of the conjugal property pertaining to the deceased spouse.
Not having appellate jurisdiction, as the amount is over 200,000, the CA cannot
have original jurisdiction to issue the 2 above mentioned writs as such was merely
incidental.

Note that what is at issue between the parties is the annulment of the appointment
of Eliezar and is such a controversy involving a contest for administration where
amount or value of the entire estate is in controversy. Maravillas contention is that
appeals in special proceedings are within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the
CA as they are not enumerated in Section 17 of the Judiciary Act. On the other hand,
it has been held that the term civil cases includes special proceedings. Such is
untenable as a special proceeding has never been held to be a civil case. Further,
Section 2, Rule 23 provides that the rules of ordinary civil action are applicable in
special proceedings if they are not inconsistent with or serve to complement special
proceedings.