CASES IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

Settlement of Estate to Adoption

(Rules 72-100)

A. Settlement of Estate (Rules 72-90)

1) Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr. (G.R. Nos. 208828-29, August 13, 2014)
Tan, Joan L.

DOCTRINE: Jurisdiction of Probate Court

At the outset, we emphasize that the probate court having jurisdiction over properties under
administration has the authority not only to approve any disposition or conveyance, but also to annul an
unauthorized sale by the prospective heirs or administrator. x xxIt being settled that property under
administration needs the approval of the probate court before it can be disposed of, any unauthorized
disposition does not bind the estate and is null and void.

FACTS:

1. In 7 October 1987, Sr.’s wife Beatriz died intestate and was survived by 6 heirs, Sr., Edmundo,
Edgardo, Jr., Neilia and Ligaya. This led the heirs to file an SP Proc. No. M-2629 under Rule 74;

2. The Intestate Court (IC) first appointed Edgardo as administrator. The latter withdrew thru a motion
in 3 November 1999 which then caused the appointment of Sr. as new administrator;

3. On 3 January 2005, IC replaced Sr. with Jr. as administrator and denied the MR challenging such
order. Thus, IC granted Jr.’s motion to take oath as administrator and expunged Sr.’s inventor report;

4. On 12 December 2005, IC recalled the Order granting letters of administration to Jr. upon Sr.’s
motion, but the same was reinstated through Jr.’s motion for partial consideration for Sr.’s alleged gross
violation of his duties and functions under Section 1, Rule 81 of the Rules of Court;

5. Sr. filed an MR while Nelia filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA, leading to the reinstatement
of Sr. as administrator due to the declaration of nullity of certain portions of the Orders, for which a writ of
preliminary injunction was issued and made the said portions permanent;
6. Jr. filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) before the SC challenging the CA Order but the
same was denied by SC for failure to show sufficient reversible error. MR for the same was likewise
denied;

7. With Sr.’s urgent motion, IC reinstated Sr. as administrator. This order was challenged in the first of
three petitions (Rule 45);

8. The second petition challenges the denial of Jr.’s motion for inhibition of Judge Guanlao (of IC) on
the ground of the latter’s partiality as he appeared once as counsel in the intestate proceedings;

9. The third challenged order involves the sale made by Jr. in favor of Citrine of a parcel of land in
Intsia Road, Forbes Park, Makati via a Deed of Absolute Sale (DOAS) executed on 16 October 2007.
Another parcel of land in Cambridge Circle, Forbes Park, Makati was sold to Ocampo in 16 September
2010, which the latter sold to Zee2. Individual titles were issued under the buyers’ names respectively;

10. Nelia filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA with prayer for injunction. A TRO was issued on 5
February 2007, and later, a Writ of Prelim. Injunction conditioned upon the posting of a bond of Php
2,000,000.00;
11. Nelia initially paid the said bond but failed to comply with the other requirements of A.M. No. 04-7-02-
SC. CA Ordered Nelia to comply and increased the bond to Php 10,000,000.00 which the latter did;

12. However, with the issuance of the order reinstating Sr. as administrator (see Fact No. 5), Sr. sought
for a TRO/Pre. Prohibitory Injunction v. Jr., Ocampo and Citrine and their successors-in-interest from
committing any act that would affect the titles issued in their names. Likewise, Sr. sought the IC to declare
the DOAS executed as null and void. IC granted said motions;

13. Jr. filed a consolidated petition for certiorari before the CA challenging the reinstatement of Sr. as
administrator, the denial of Jr.’s motion for inhibition, and the declaration of nullity of the DOAS. CA
denied the first 2 but granted the latter, thereby reversing IC’s declaration of nullity. Hence, the instant
petition (Rule 45).

ISSUES: WON the CA erred in reversing the IC’s declaration that the DOAS and the titles issued to
buyers are null and void.

PROVISION: RULING + RATIO: No. The CA was correct in reversing the IC Decision.
·
In reversing the IC, CA relied on Jr.’s arguments that the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction
pertained only to the portion of Sr.’s reinstatement as administrator. It ruled:

x xxIn reversing the intestate court’s order annulling the sale of the subject properties, the CA noted that
said ruling is anchored on the fact that the deeds of sale were executed at the time when the TRO and
writ of preliminary injunction issued in CA-G.R. SP No. 97196 was still in effect. It then concluded that the
eventual decision in the latter case making the writ of preliminary injunction permanent only with respect
to the appointment of petitioner as administrator and not to the grant of authority to sell mooted the issue
of whether the sale was executed at the time when the TRO and writ of preliminary injunction were in
effect. x xx

x xx The October 31, 2006 Omnibus Order of the testate [sic] court in so far as it authorizes the sale of
the three properties in question was not declared by the Court of Appeals, Seventh Division as null and
void. x xx

x xx While it is true that petitioner was eventually reinstated as Administrator pursuant to the August 28,
2008 decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 97196 (petition for certiorari filed by Nelia Silverio-Dee), we agree with
the CA that the permanent injunction issued under the said decision, as explicitly stated in its fallo,
pertained only to the portions of the October 31, 2006 Omnibus Order upholding the grant of letters of
administration to and taking of an oath of administration by respondent Silverio, Jr., as otherwise the CA
would have expressly set aside as well the directive in the same Omnibus Order allowing the sale of the
subject properties. Moreover, the CA Decision attained finality only on February 11, 2011 when this Court
denied with finality respondent Silverio, Jr.’s motion for reconsideration of the February 11, 2009
Resolution denying his petition for review (G.R. No. 185619).