REYNALDO MENDIOLA, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, REDENTOR A. MENDIOLA, FLORENTINA M. MENDIOLA, ERNESTINA A. MENDIOLA, EDGARDO M. MENDIOLA, MANUEL M. MENDIOLA, ENRICO M. MEND…

This is a contest between
two brothers for appointment as executor of their
father’s estate.  The petitioner assails
the decision dated February 12, 1990 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
19373 affirming the orders of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig,
Metro Manila in Sp. Proc. No.
10027 removing him as executor of the estate of his father, the late Carlos Mendiola, and appointing his brother, Redentor
Mendiola, in his stead.

The facts, as stated in
the decision of the Court of Appeals, are quoted below:

“The petitioner and private respondents are the surviving
heirs of the late Carlos Mendiola who died on December 28, 1984. 
Florentina Mendiola
is the surviving spouse while the petitioner and all the private respondents
are the children of the deceased.

“A petition for probate of a will was filed by the petitioner
on March 30, 1987 in the
Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila entitled ‘Probate of the Will and Testament
of Deceased Carlos Mendiola’ Sp. Proc. No. 10027
which was set for hearing on August
18, 1987.

“On October 9, 1987, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 166
presided by Judge Eutropio Migrino
rendered a decision allowing the will and issuing letters testamentary in favor
of the petitioner who was
declared executor of the estate of the deceased in the will.  After the petitioner took his oath on October 14, 1987 letters
testamentary was issued in favor of the petitioner on October 20, 1987.

“On April 28, 1989,
the private respondents filed a motion for the removal of the executor and
another motion on May 2, 1989 for the
appointment of Redentor Mendiola
of (sic) executor.

“On May 22, 1989,
the respondent-Judge granted the motion and ordered the removal of the petitioner
as executor and revoked the letters testamentary.  On May
23, 1989, the trial court ordered the appointment of Redentor Mendiola as executor.

“A motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioner
which was opposed by the private respondents and the trial court denied the
motion for reconsideration.” (p. 26, Rollo.)

On appeal, the
Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, hence, this petition
for review.

Petitioner maintains that the Court of Appeals erred in not
annulling the probate court’s order removing him as executor for:  (a) no evidence had been adduced by the
respondents in support of their motion for his removal, and (b) that he was not
given his day in court.

There is no merit in the petition.  Sufficient evidence was adduced in the
proceedings in the Regional Trial Court of Pasig,
that petitioner failed to pay the estate tax. 
Petitioner’s own counsel, Atty. Gregorio Ejercito,
admitted in a Manifestation that
his client indeed has no proof or receipt of payment of the estate tax (Annexes
“C” and “L,”
pp. 69 & 84, Rollo, respectively).  Petitioner also failed to render an
accounting of the estate and settle the same according to law.  Furthermore, he involved the heirs in a
transaction with Villarica Pawnshop which, because of
petitioner’s failure to honor his part of the bargain, resulted in the filing
of a suit by Villarica against the heirs  (Civil Case No. 58450).  The case is still pending in the Regional
Trial Court of Pasig.

The removal of the petitioner is in accordance with the
provisions of Section 2, Rule 82 of the Rules of Court that:

“If an executor or administrator neglects to render his
account and settle the estate according to law, or to perform an order or
judgment of the court, or a duty expressly provided by these rules, or
absconds, or becomes insane, or otherwise incapable or unsuitable to discharge
the trust, the court may remove him, or in its discretion, may permit him to
resign x x x.”

“The determination of a person’s suitability for the office of
judicial administrator rests, to a great extent, in the sound judgment of the
court exercising the power of appointment and said judgment is not to be interfered with on appeal
unless the said court is clearly in error.” (Abad
vs. Court of Tax Appeals, 18 SCRA 371.)

“The removal of an administrator under Section 2 of Rule 82
lies within the discretion of the court appointing him.” (Id.)

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the questioned
decision dated February 12, 1990
and the order dated April 25, 1990
of the respondent Court of Appeals, the petition
for review is denied for lack of merit, with costs against the
petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.