SITTI

CASE NO. 84
Matute v CA
Demurrer to Evidence

FACTS: On August 20, 1995 when Carlos S. Matute, one of the heirs and full-blood brother of both the petitioner and the
respondent Matias S. Matute, filed in Special Proceeding (settlement of the Matute estate) a petition praying for the removal of Matias as co-administrator
and his appointment in such capacity.
Carlos alleged that for a period of more then two years from the date of his appointment, said Matias has neglected to render a true, just and complete
account of his administration and he is not only incompetent but also negligent in his management of the estate under his charge consisting of five
haciendas.
The respondent opposed the allegation that it is completely without basis and false. Records show that he made an accounting and the same was submitted
to the court. That his competence to act as administrator has been established to the satisfaction of the court.
It appears that during the reception of evidence conducted on December 29, 1965 by the probate court, Carlos and the other heirs submitted their
respective list of exhibits in support of their motion to oust Matias. On January 8, 1966 filed a written objection to the admission of the movants’ exhibits
on the ground that the same was hearsay, self-serving, irrelevant, and or mere photostatic copies of supposed originals which never properly identified
nor shown in court. Four days later, the counsel for Matias filed with leave of court a “Motion to Dismiss and/or Demurer to Evidence” which later avers
that there is no sufficient evidence on record to justify and support the motions for the removal of the herein co-administrator Matias S. Matute.
The probate court issued an order removing Matias as co-administrator. Hence, the certiorari. The respondent contends that the disputed order of patent
nullity. Upon the other hand, the petitioner advances the reason in support of the order, and the probate court accorded the respondent all the opportunity
to adduce his evidence but the latter resorted to dilatory tactics such as filing a motion to dismiss or demurer to evidence.

ISSUES: W/N Rule 33 of regarding judgement on demurer to evidence is applicable to special proceedings such that it’s disregard by the probate court
amounts to grave abuse of discretion.

RULING: Yes. Section 2, Rule 72 of the Rules of Court provides that in the absence of special provisions, the rules provided for in ordinary civil
actions, shall be, as far as practicable, applicable in special proceedings. The application of the above cited Rule in special proceedings, like the case
at bar, is authorized by the Rules. Instead of resolving the foregoing motion, the probate judge issued the controverted order removing the respondent as
co-administrator without the without giving him the opportunity to adduce his own evidence in his behalf in the event of the denial of his motion to
dismiss/demurrer to evidence. The court view that the above actuation of the probate judge constituted grave abuse of discretion which dooms
his improvident order as nullity.