Petitioner Aurea  Matias  seeks,a writ of certiorari to annul  certain   orders of Hon. Primitivo L. Gonzales, as Judge of the  Court of First Instance  of Cavite, in connection with Special Proceedings  No.  5213  of  said  court, entitled "Testate Estate of  the Deceased Gabina Raquel."

On  May 15, 1952, Aurea  Matias initiated said special proceedings with a  petition  for  the probate  of a  document purporting to  be the last will and testament of  her  aunt, Gabina  Raquel, who died single  on May 8, 1952, at the age  of 92  years.  The heir to  the  entire  estate of the deceased except the properties bequeathed  to her other niece  and  nephews, namely,  Victorina  Salud,  Santiago Salud,   Policarpio   Salud,  Santos  Matias  and  Rafael Matias is,  pursuant to said  instrument,  Aurea Matias, likewise,  appointed  therein  as executrix  thereof, without bond. Basilia Salud, a first cousin of the deceased, opposed the probate of her alleged will, and, after appropriate proceedings, the court, presided over  by respondent Judge, issued an order,  dated  February 8, 1956, sustaining said opposition  and  denying the  petition  for probate.  Subsequently, Aurea Matias brought the matter on  appeal to this Court  (G.  R. No. L-10751), where it is now pending decision.

Meanwhile,  or on February  17,  1956, Basilia  Salud moved for  the  dismissal of Horacio Rodriguez, as special administrator  of the estate of the  deceased, and the appointment,  in his stead  of Ramon Plata.  The  motion was set  for  hearing on  February  23, 1956, on which date the court postponed  the hearing  to  February 27, 1956.  Al- though  notified of this order,  Rodriguez did not appear on the  date  last  mentioned.  Instead, he  riled  an urgent motion praying for  additional  time within which to answer the charges preferred against  him by Basilia Salud and for another postponement of said hearing.  This  motion was not granted, and  Basilia Salud introduced evidence in support of said charges, whereupon respondent Judge, by an order, dated February 27, 1956,  found Rodriguez guilty of abuse of authority  and  gross  negligence, and, accordingly, relieved him as  special  administrator  of the estate of the deceased and  appointed Basilia  Salud as special administratrix thereof,  to "be assisted  and  advised by her niece,  Miss Victorina Salud," who "shall always act as aide, interpreter and  adviser  of   Basilia  Salud."  Said order,  likewise,  provided that  "Basilia  Salud  shall be helped by Mr. Ramon Plata * *  * who is  hereby  appointed as  co-administrator."

On March 8, 1956, Aurea Matias asked that said  order of February 27, 1956, be set aside and that she be appointed special  co-administratrix, jointly with Horacio Rodriguez, upon the ground that  Basilia Salud is  over eighty (80). years of age, totally blind and physically  incapacitated to perform the duties of  said  office,  and that said  movant is the universal  heiress of the  deceased  and the person appointed by  the  latter as executrix of her alleged  will. This motion was denied in an order dated March 10, 1956, which  maintained "the  appointment of  the three  above- named persons" Baailia  Salud,  Ramon Plata  and  Vic- torina Salud "for the management of the estate  of the late  Gabina Raquel pending final. decision  on the probate of the  alleged will of said  decedent."  However, on  March 17/1956, Basilia Salud tendered her resignation as  special administratrix by reason of physical disability, due to old age, and recommended the appointment, in her place, of Victorina Salud.  Before any action could be taken thereon, or on  March  21,  1956,  Aurea Matias  sought a reconsideration of  said order of March  10, 1956.   Moreover,  on March 24,  1956,  she expressed  her conformity to  said resignation, but  objected  to  the  appointment, in lieu of Basilia Salud, of Victorina Salud, on account of her antagonism to said Aurea Matias she (Victorina Salud)  hav- ing been the principal and most interested  witness for the opposition  to  the probate of the  alleged will of the deceased and proposed that the administration of her estate be entrusted to the  Philippine National  Bank, the  Monte de  Piedad,  the Bank of  the  Philippine Islands,  or any other similar institution authorized by law therefor, should the  court be  reluctant to appoint  the movant as  special administratrix of said estate.  This motion for reconsideration was denied on  March 26, 1956.

Shortly afterwards,  or  on June 18, 1966, respondents Ramon Plata  and Victorina Salud  requested  authority to collect the  rents  due,  or which may be due, to the estate of the deceased and to collect all the produce of her lands, which was granted on June 23, 1956.  On June 27, 1956, said respondents filed another motion praying for permis- sion to sell the palay  of  the deceased, then  deposited in different rice mills in the province  of Cavite, which respond- ent judge granted on June 10, 1956. Later on, or on July 10,  1956, petitioner instituted the  present action  against Judge Gonzales, and Victorina Salud and Ramon Plata, for  the purpose of  annulling the  above mentioned  orders  of respondent Judge, upon the ground that the same had been issued  with grave abuse of  discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

In support of this pretense, it is urged that  petitioner should have preference in the choice of special adminis- tratrix of the estate of the decedent, she (petitioner)  being :  the universal heiress to said estate and the executrix ap- pointed in  the alleged will of the deceased,  that, until its  final disallowance which has not, as yet, taken place she has a special interest in said estate, which must be protected  by giving representation thereto in the management of said ; estate; that, apart from denying  her any such representation, the management was given  to persons  partial to her main opponent, namely, Basilia Salud, inasmuch as Victorina Salud  is allied to her and Ramon Plata is a  very close  friend  of  one of her  (Basilia  Salud's)  attorneys;  that Basilia Salud was made special administratrix despite her obvious unfitness for said office, she being over eighty (80) years of age and blind;  that said  disability is borne out by the  fact that  on March 17, 1956, Basilia Salud resigned as special administratrix upon such ground; that the  Rules of Court do not  permit the appointment of more than one special administrator; that Horacio  Rodriguez was removed without giving petitioner a chance to be heard in connection therewith; and that Ramon Plata  and Victorina Salud were authorized  to collect the rents due to the deceased and the produce of  her lands, as well as to sell her palay, without previous notice to the petitioner  herein.

Upon the other hand, respondents maintain that respond- ent Judge acted  within the scope of his jurisdiction and without any abuse of discretion; that petitioner can not validly  claim any special  interest  in  the estate  of the deceased, because the probate of the alleged will and testament of the latter upon which petitioner relies has been denied; that Horacio Rodriguez  was duly notified of the proceedings for his removal;  and  that Victorina Salud and

Ramon Plata  have not done anything that would warrant their removal.

Upon a review of the record, we find ourselves unable to sanction fully the acts of respondent Judge, for the  following reasons:

1. Although Horacio Rodriguez had notice of the hearing: of the motion  for his removal, dated February 17, 1956, the record shows  that petitioner herein received copy of said motion of February 24, 1956, or the date after that set for the hearing thereof.   Again, notice of the order of respondent Judge, dated February 23, 1956, postponing said hearing to February 27, 1956,  was not served on petitioner herein.
   
2. In her motion  of February 17,  1956, Basilia Salud prayed for the  dismissal of  Horacio  Rodriguez, and  the appointment of  Ramon Plata, as special administrator of said estate. Petitioner had, therefore, no  notice that  her main, opponent,  Basilia  Salud, and the  latter's principal witness,  Victorina Salud, would be considered for the man- agement of said estate.  As  a consequence, said  petitioner had  no opportunity to  object to the appointment  of Basilia Salud  as special administratrix,  and  of Victorina  Salud as her assistant  and adviser, and the order of February 27, 1956, to this effect,  denied  due process  to  said petitioner.
   
3. Said order  was issued with evident knowledge of the physical disability of Basilia Salud.  Otherwise respondent Judge  would not have directed that she "be assisted and advised by her niece Victorina Salud  and that the latter "shall  act as aide, interpreter and adviser of Basilia Salud."
   
4. Thus, respondent Judge, in effect, appointed three  (3) special administrators Basilia Salud, Victorina Salud and Ramon Plata.   Indeed,  in the order of March  10,  1956, respondent Judge maintained "the appointment of the three (3)  above-named persons  for  the  management of  the estate  of the late Gabina Raquel."
   
5. Soon .after  the institution of said Special Proceedings No. 5213, an issue arose  between Aurea Matias and Basilia P. Salud regarding the person to be appointed special admin- istrator of the estate of the deceased.   The former proposed Horacio Rodriguez,  whereas  the  latter urged the appointment of Victorina Salud.  By  an order dated August 11,  1952, the Court, then  presided over by  Hon.  Jose Bernabe, Judge, decided the matter in  favor of Horacio Rodriguez and against Victorina Salud,  upon the ground that, unlike the latter, who,  as a pharmacist and employee in the Santa Isabel Hospital, resides  in the City of Manila, the  former, a practicing lawyer and  a former public prosiecutor, and later, mayor of the City of Cavite, is a resident thereof.  In other words, the order of respondent Judge of  February 27,  1956,  removing  Rodriguez and appointing Victorina Salud to the management of the estate, amounted to a reversal of the aforementioned order of Judge Bernabe of August 11, 1952.
   
   
6. Although the probate  of the alleged will and  testa- ment of  Gabina Eaquel was denied  by respondent Judge, the  order to this effect is not, as yet, final and executory. It is  pending review on  appeal  taken by Aurea Matias. The probate of said alleged  will being still  within the realm of legal possibility, Aurea Matias  has as the  uni- versal heir and executrix designated in said instrument a special interest to protect during the  pendency of  said appeal.   Thns, in the case of Roxas vs.  Pecson *  (46 Off. Gaz., 2058), this  Court held that a  widow, designated as executrix in the alleged will and testament of her deceased husband, the  probate  of which had  been   denied  in an order pending appeal, "has   *  *  *  the same beneficial interest after the  decision of the court  disapproving the will, which is now pending  appeal, because the decision, is not yet final and 'may be reversed by the appellate court."
   
7. The record shows that there are,  at  least two (2) factions among the heirs of  the deceased,  namely, one, represented by the petitioner,  and another,  to which Basilia Salud and Victorina  Salud belong.  Inasmuch as the lower court had deemed it  best to appoint  more than one special administrator, justice and equity demands  that both factions be represented in the management of  the  estate of the deceased.

The rule, laid down in Roxas vs. Pecson (supra), to the effect  that  "only  one  special  administrator  may  be appointed to administrator temporarily" the estate of the deceased, must be considered in the light of the facts obtaining in said case.   The lower  court appointed therein one special administrator for  some properties forming part of said estate,  and  a special administratrix for other prop- erties  thereof.  Thus,  there were two  (2)  separate  and independent special  administrators.  In  the  case  at bar there is only one  (1)  special administration, the powers of which  shall be exercised  jointly  by two special  co-administrators.  In short,  the Roxas case is  nob squarely in point.  Moreover, there  are  authorities in support of the power of courts to appoint several special co-administrators (Lewis vs. Logan,  87  A. 750; Harrison vs.  Clark, 52 A.  514; In  re Wilson's  Estate,  61 N.Y.S. 2d., 49; Davenport vs. Davenport, 60 A. 379).

Wherefore,,  the  orders complained  of are hereby an nulled and  set aside.  The lower court should re-hear the matter of  removal of Horatio Rodriguez and appointment of special administrators,  after due  notice to all  parties concerned,  for action  in conformity  with the  views  expressed  herein, with  costs  against respondents  Victorina Salud  and Ramon  Plata.   It is so  ordered.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor,  reyes, A., Bautista angelo, Labrador,  Reyes, J. B. L., and Felix, J.J., Concur.