Matute v.

CA, 26 SCRA 768

Facts:
On August 20, 1965 when Carlos S. Matute, one of the Matute heirs and a full-blood brother of both the
petitioner and the herein 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 than two years from the date of his appointment,
said Matias S. Matute has neglected to render a true, just and complete account of his administration and
that he is not only incompetent but also negligent in his management of the estate under his charge
consisting of five haciendas. The respondent Matias 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 S.
Matute and the other heirs submitted their respective lists of exhibits in support of their motion to ousts
Matias. On January 8, 1966 Matias filed a written objection to the admission of the movants’ exhibits on
the ground that the same were 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 Demurrer to Evidence”which 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 S. Matute as co-
administrator. Hence, the certiorari. The respondent contends that the disputed order removing him as
co-administrator is a patent nullity. Upon the other hand, the petitioner advances the reason in support
of the order of removal that the probate judge 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 demurrer to
evidence.

Issue: Whether or not Rule 33 regarding judgment on demurrer to evidence is applicable to special
proceedings such that its’ disregard by the probate court amounts to grave abuse of discretion.

Held: 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 giving him the opportunity to adduce his own
evidence despite his explicit reservation that he be afforded the chance to introduce evidence in his behalf
in the event of denial of his motion to dismiss and/or 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.