You are on page 1of 15

G.R. Nos. 208828-29. August 13, 2014.

RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR., petitioner, vs. RICARDO S. SILVERIO, JR., CITRINE


HOLDINGS, INC., MONICA P. OCAMPO and ZEE2 RESOURCES, INC., respondents.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; Probate Courts; 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.—
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. Thus we held in Lee v.
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 85, 423 SCRA 497 (2004): Juliana Ortañez and
Jose Ortañez sold specific properties of the estate, without court approval. It is well-settled that
court approval is necessary for the validity of any disposition of the decedent’s estate. In the
early case of Godoy v. Orellano, we laid down the rule that the sale of the property of the estate
by an administrator without the order of the probate court is void and passes no title to the
purchaser. And in the case of Dillena v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that: x x x x It being settled
that prop-

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

184

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

erty 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. As early as 1921 in
the case of Godoy v. Orellano (42 Phil. 347), We laid down the rule that a sale by an
administrator of property of the deceased, which is not authorized by the probate court is null
and void and title does not pass to the purchaser. There is hardly any doubt that the probate court
can declare null and void the disposition of the property under administration, made by private
respondent, the same having been effected without authority from said court. It is the probate
court that has the power to authorize and/or approve the sale (Sections 4 and 7, Rule 89),
hence, a fortiori, it is said court that can declare it null and void for as long as the proceedings
had not been closed or terminated. To uphold petitioner’s contention that the probate court
cannot annul the unauthorized sale, would render meaningless the power pertaining to the said
court. (Bonga v. Soler, 2 SCRA 755 [1961]). Our jurisprudence is therefore clear that (1) any
disposition of estate property by an administrator or prospective heir pending final adjudication
requires court approval and (2) any unauthorized disposition of estate property can be annulled
by the probate court, there being no need for a separate action to annul the unauthorized
disposition.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Gille, Cruz and Monera Law Offices and Quisumbing, Torres for petitioner.

Poblador, Bautista & Reyes for respondent ZEE2 Resources.

R.M. Lee & Associates for respondents R. Silverio, Jr., Citrine Holdings, Inc. and M. Ocampo.

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as
amended, to reverse and

185

VOL. 733, AUGUST 13, 2014 185


Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

set aside the Decision1 dated March 8, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) insofar as C.A.-G.R.
S.P. Nos. 121173 and 122024 are concerned, and Resolution2 dated July 4, 2013 denying
petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration. The CA nullified the preliminary injunction
issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City (“intestate court”), Branch 57 in Sp.
Proc. No. M-2629 and reversed said court’s Order dated August 18, 2011 declaring the sales and
derivative titles over two properties subject of intestate proceedings as null and void.

The factual and procedural antecedents of the case, as summarized by the CA, are as follows:

The late Beatriz S. Silverio died without leaving a will on October 7, 1987. She was survived by
her legal heirs, namely: Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. (husband), Edmundo S. Silverio (son), Edgardo
S. Silverio (son), Ricardo S. Silverio, Jr. (son), Nelia S. Silverio-Dee (daughter), and Ligaya S.
Silverio (daughter). Subsequently, an intestate proceeding (SP. PROC. NO. M-2629) for the
settlement of her estate was filed by SILVERIO, SR.

In the course of the proceedings, the parties filed different petitions and appeal challenging
several orders of the intestate court that went all the way up to the Supreme Court. To better
understand the myriad of factual and procedural antecedents leading to the instant consolidated
case, this court will resolve the petitions in seriatim.

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 20-50. Penned by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba, with Associate Justices
Ricardo R. Rosario and Marlene Gonzales-Sison, concurring.

2 Id., at pp. 52-53.

186

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

The Petitions

C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 121172

The first petition of the three consolidated petitions is C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 121172 wherein
petitioner, RICARDO S. SILVERIO, JR. (“SILVERIO, JR.”) assails the Order of the intestate
court dated 16 June 2011 reinstating RICARDO SILVERIO, SR. (“SILVERIO, SR.”) as
administrator to the estate of the late Beatriz Silverio.

The administrator first appointed by the Court was EDGARDO SILVERIO (“EDGARDO”), but
by virtue of a Joint Manifestation dated 3 November 1999 filed by the heirs of BEATRIZ D.
SILVERIO, the motion to withdraw as administrator filed by EDGARDO was approved by the
intestate court and in his stead, SILVERIO, SR. was appointed as the new administrator.

Thereafter, an active exchange of pleadings to remove and appoint a new administrator ensued
between SILVERIO, SR. and SILVERIO, JR. The flip-flopping appointment of administrator is
summarized below:

In an Order dated 3 January 2005, SILVERIO, SR. was removed as administrator and in his
stead, SILVERIO, JR. was designated as the new administrator. A motion for reconsideration
was separately filed by SILVERIO, SR. and Nelia Silverio-Dee (“SILVERIO-DEE”) and on 31
May 2005, the intestate court issued an Omnibus Order affirming among others, the Order of 3
January 2005. In the same Order, the intestate court also granted the motion of SILVERIO, JR.
to take his oath as administrator effective upon receipt of the order and expunged the inventory
report filed by SILVERIO, SR.

On 12 December 2005 the intestate court acting on the motion filed by SILVERIO, SR. recalled
the Order granting letters of administration to SILVERIO, JR. and reinstated SILVERIO, SR. as
administrator. Then again, the intestate court acting on the motion for partial consideration to the
Order dated 12 December 2005 filed by SILVERIO, JR. issued an Omnibus Order dated 31
Octo-

187
VOL. 733, AUGUST 13, 2014 187
Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

ber 2006 upholding the grant of Letters of Administration to SILVERIO, JR. and removed
SILVERIO, SR., ad administrator for gross violation of his duties and functions under Section 1,
Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.

SILVERIO, SR. moved for reconsideration of the above Order whereas SILVERIO-DEE on the
other hand, filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals docketed as C.A.-G.R. S.P.
No. 97196. On 28 August 2008, the Court of Appeals (Seventh Division) rendered a decision
reinstating SILVERIO, SR. as administrator, the decretal portion of the Order reads:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The portions of the Omnibus Order upholding the
grant of letters of administration to and the taking of an oath of administration by Ricardo
Silverio, Jr., as well as the removal of Ricardo Silverio, Sr. as administrator to the Estate of
Beatriz Silverio, are declared NULL and VOID. The writ of preliminary injunction earlier issued
is MADE PERMANENT in regard to the said portions. Respondent RTC is ORDERED to
reinstate Ricardo Silverio, Sr. as administrator to the Estate of Beatriz Silverio. Costs against the
Private Respondents.

SO ORDERED.”

SILVERIO, JR. filed a Petition for review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court docketed as
G.R. No. 185619 challenging the 28 Augsut 2008 decision of the Court of Appeals. On 11
February 2009, the Supreme Court issued a resolution denying the petition for failure to
sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed judgment to warrant the exercise by the
Court of discretionary appellate jurisdiction. Acting on SILVERIO, JR.’s motion for
reconsideration, the Supreme Court on 11 February 2011, denied the motion with finality. An
entry of judgment was made on 29 March 2011.

On 25 April 2011, SILVERIO, SR. filed before the intestate court, an urgent motion to be
reinstated as ad

188
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

ministrator of the estate. Acting on the motion, the intestate court issued the now challenged
Order dated 16 June 2011, the pertinent portion of the Order reads:

xxxx
“WHEREFORE, upon posting of a bond in the sum of TEN MILLION PESOS, the same to be
approved by this Court, Mr. Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. is hereby ordered reinstated as the
Administrator to the estate of the late Beatriz Silverio and to immediately take his oath as such,
and exercise his duties and functions as are incumbent under the law upon the said position.

x x x.”

xxxx

C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 121173

xxxx

On 15 March 2011, heirs SILVERIO, JR., EDMUNDO and LIGAYA represented by her legal
guardian moved for the disqualification and/or inhibition of JUDGE GUANLAO, JR. based on
the following grounds: (1) Absence of the written consent of all parties in interest allowing
JUDGE GUANLAO, JR. to continue hearing the case considering that he appeared once as
counsel in the intestate proceedings; (2) JUDGE GUANLAO, JR. has shown bias and partiality
in favor of SILVERIO, SR. by allowing the latter to pursue several motions and even issued a
TRO in violation of the rules against forum shopping; (3) Heir LIGAYA’s Petition for Support
and Release of Funds for Medical Support has not been resolved; and (4) It is in the best interest
of all the heirs that the proceedings be presided and decided by the cold neutrality of an impartial
judge.

On 23 March 2011, JUDGE GUANLAO, JR. issued an order denying the Motion for
Disqualification and/or Inhibition. The movants filed a motion for reconsidera

189
VOL. 733, AUGUST 13, 2014 189
Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.
tion but the same was denied in an order dated 14 June 2011. Hence, the instant petition.

xxxx

C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 122024

xxxx

The intestate court in its Omnibus Order dated 31 October 2006, ordered among others, the sale
of certain properties belonging to the estate. The portion of the order which is pertinent to the
present petition reads:

“WHEREFORE, above premises considered, this Court for the foregoing reasons resolves to
grant the following:

(1) x x x
(2) xxx

(3) Allowing the sale of the properties located at (1) No. 82 Cambridge Circle, Forbes Park,
Makati City, covered by T.C.T. No. 137155 issued by Register of Deeds of Makati City; (2) No.
3 Intsia Road, Forbes Park, Makati City covered by T.C.T. No. 4137154 issued by the Register
of Deeds of Makati City; and (3) No. 19 Taurus St., Bel-Air Subd. Makati City covered by TCT
No. 137156 issued by the Register of Deeds of Makati City to partially settle the intestate estate
of the late Beatriz S. Silverio, and authorizing the Administrator to undertake the proper
procedure or transferring the titles involved to the name of the estate; and

(4) To apply the proceeds of the sale mentioned in Number 3 above to the payment of taxes,
interests, penalties and other charges, if any, and to distribute the residue among the heirs
Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr., Ricardo S. Silverio, Jr., Ligaya S. Silverio represented by Legal
Guardian Nestor S. Dela Merced II,

190
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

Edmundo S. Silverio and Nelia S. Silverio-Dee in accordance with the law on intestacy.

SO ORDERED.”

By virtue of the aforesaid Order, SILVERIO, JR. on 16 October 2007 executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale in favor of CITRINE HOLDINGS, Inc. (“CITRINE”) over the property located at
No. 3 Intsia Road, Forbes Park, Makati City. CITRINE became the registered owner thereof on
06 September 2010 as evidenced by TCT No. 006-201000063.

A Deed of Absolute Sale was likewise executed in favor of Monica P. Ocampo (notarized on
September 16, 2010) for the lot located at No. 82 Cambridge Circle, Forbes Park, Makati City.
On 23 December 2010, TCT No. 006-2011000050 was issued to Monica P. Ocampo. The latter
subsequently sold said property to ZEE2 Resources, Inc. (ZEE2) and TCT No. 006-2011000190
was issued on 11 February 2011 under its name.

In the interim, or on 12 December 2006 SILVERIO-DEE filed a petition for certiorari before the
Court of Appeals docketed as C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 97196 with prayer for injunctive relief. As
prayed for, the Court of Appeals issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on 5 February
2007. On 4 July 2007, the Court issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction conditioned upon the
posting of the bond in the amount of two million pesos (Php2,000,000.00). SILVERIO-DEE
posted the required bond on February 5, 2007 but in an order dated 3 January 2008, the Court
ruled that the bond posted by SILVERIO-DEE failed to comply with A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC. The
Court, however, did not reverse the ruling granting the injunction but instead ordered
SILVERIO-DEE to comply with A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC. The Court also increased the bond from
two million to ten million. On 29 February 2008, the Court issued a Resolution approving the ten
million bond and issued the Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Eventually, on 28 August 2008 the
Court of Appeals (Seventh Division) issued a decision reinstating SILVERIO, SR. as
administrator and declaring the Writ of

191

VOL. 733, AUGUST 13, 2014 191


Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

Preliminary Injunction permanent in regard to the appointment of administrator.

On 04 February 2011 SILVERIO, SR. filed an Urgent Application for the Issuance of Temporary
Restraining Order/Preliminary Prohibitory Injunction (With Motion For the Issuance of
Subpoena Ad Testificandum and Subpoena Duces Tecum) praying among others, that a TRO be
issued restraining and/or preventing SILVERIO, JR., MONICA OCAMPO, CITRINE
HOLDINGS, INC. and their successors-in-interest from committing any act that would affect the
titles to the three properties.

On 14 February 2011, SILVERIO, SR. filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion (a) To Declare as Null
and Void the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 16 September 2010; (b) To cancel the Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 006-2011000050; and (c) To reinstate the Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 2236121 in the name of Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. and the Intestate Estate of the late Beatriz S.
Silverio.

On 28 February 2011 the Intestate Court issued an Order granting a Temporary Restraining
Order enjoining SILVERIO, JR., their agent or anybody acting in their behalf from committing
any act that would affect the titles to the properties and enjoining the Register of Deeds of
Makati City from accepting, admitting, approving, registering, annotating or in any way giving
due course to whatever deeds, instruments or any other documents involving voluntary or
involuntary dealings which may have the effect of transferring, conveying, encumbering, ceding,
waiving, alienating, or disposing in favor of any individual or any entity of the subject properties.
Subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum was also issued by the intestate court requiring
SILVERIO, JR., MONICA OCAMPO and ALEXANDRA GARCIA of CITRINE to testify and
bring with them any books and documents under their control to shed light on the circumstances
surrounding the transaction involving the properties in question.

192

192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

On 9 March 2011, SILVERIO, SR. filed a Supplement to the Urgent Omnibus Motion dated 14
February 2011. On 18 August 2011, the intestate court rendered the now assailed Order the
decretal portion of the Order is quoted hereunder:

“WHEREFORE, this Court hereby orders that:


1. The Deed of Absolute Sale dated 16 September 2010 as VOID;

2. The Transfer Certificate of Title No. 006-2011000050 in the name of defendant MONICA
OCAMPO or any of her successors-in-interest including all derivative titles, as NULL AND
VOID;

3. The Transfer Certificate of Title TCT No. 006-2011000190 in the name of ZEE2
RESOURCES, INC. or any of its successors-in-interest including all derivative titles, as NULL
AND VOID;

4. (T)he Register of Deeds of Makati City to CANCEL Transfer Certificate of Title No. 006-
2011000050, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 006-2011000190 and all of its derivative titles;
and

5. Reinstating the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2236121 in the name of RICARDO C.
SILVERIO, SR. AND THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE BEATRIZ SILVERIO, and

AS TO THE INTSIA PROPERTY:

1. The Register of Deeds of Makati City to CANCEL Transfer Certificate of Title No. 006-
2010000063, in the name of CITRINE HOLDINGS, INC. and all of its derivative titles; and

2. The reinstatement of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 223612 in the name of

193
VOL. 733, AUGUST 13, 2014 193
Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR. and the INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE BEATRIZ
SILVERIO.

SO ORDERED.”

x x x x3

The consolidated petitions for certiorari filed by respondent Ricardo S. Silverio, Jr.
(“Silverio, Jr.”) before the CA questioned the following issuances of the intestate court: C.A.-
G.R. S.P. No. 121172 — Order dated June 16, 2011 reinstating Silverio, Sr. as Administrator;
C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 121173 — (1) Order dated March 23, 2011 granting Silverio, Sr.’s
application for preliminary injunction enjoining Silverio, Jr. or anyone acting on their behalf
from committing any act that would affect the titles to the subject properties and enjoining the
Register of Deeds of Makati City from accepting, admitting, approving, registering, annotating
or in any way giving due course to whatever deeds, instruments or any other documents
involving the Cambridge and Intsia properties, (2) Order dated March 23, 2011 which denied
Silverio, Jr.’s motion or disqualification and/or inhibition of Judge Guanlao, Jr., and (3) Order
dated June 14, 2011 denying the motion for reconsideration of the March 23, 2011 Order
(granting application for preliminary injunction); and in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 122024 — Order
dated August 18, 2011 declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale, TCT and all derivative titles over
the Cambridge and Intsia properties as null and void.

On March 8, 2013, the CA rendered its Decision, the fallo of which reads:

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the Court hereby disposes and orders the
following:

1. The petition in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 121172 is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the
16 June 2011

_______________

3 Id., at pp. 22-42.

194

194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

Order of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 57 reinstating MR. RICARDO C.
SILVERIO, SR. as Administrator is AFFIRMED.

2. The petition in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 121173 is partly DENIED for lack of merit insofar as it
questions the 23 March 2011 Order denying RICARDO SILVERIO, JR.’s Motion for
Disqualification and/or Inhibition of Judge Honorio E. Guanlao, Jr. The petition is partly
GRANTED in that the Preliminary Injunction issued by the Regional Trial Court of Makati
City, Branch 57 is hereby declared NULL and VOID for being issued with grave abuse of
discretion.

3. The petition in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 122024 is GRANTED. Accordingly, the 18 August
2011 Order declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale, Transfer Certificate of Title and all derivative
titles over the Cambridge and Intsia Property null and void is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.4

Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. (petitioner) filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration5 “insofar as its
ruling in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 122024” praying that the August 18, 2011 Order of the intestate
court be affirmed. By Resolution dated July 4, 2013, the CA denied his motion for partial
reconsideration.
Hence, this petition contending that the CA committed a reversible error in upholding the
validity of the Intsia and Cambridge properties upon the ground that the intestate court cannot
annul the sales as it has a limited jurisdiction only and which does not include resolving issues of
ownership. It is asserted that the CA should not have stopped there and looked into the nature of
the properties sold, which formed part of the conjugal partnership of Ricardo Silverio, Sr. and
Beatriz S. Silverio.

_______________

4 Id., at pp. 49-50.

5 Id., at pp. 54-65.

195

VOL. 733, AUGUST 13, 2014 195


Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

Petitioner seeks the reinstatement of the order of the intestate court annulling the sales of the
Cambridge and Intsia properties. In the alternative, should the said sales be upheld, petitioner
prays that this Court (1) declare the sales to be valid only to the extent of 50% net remainder
share of the late Beatriz less the corresponding shares therefrom of petitioner and the other legal
compulsory heirs, and (2) order respondent Silverio, Jr. to account for the proceeds of sales for
distribution of the residue among the legal/compulsory heirs.

In their Comment, respondents Silverio, Jr., Monica Ocampo and Citrine Holdings, Inc. argued
that the intestate court should not have ruled on the validity of the sale of the subject properties
to third parties after it itself had authorized their disposal in partial settlement of the estate,
especially so when separate actions assailing the new titles issued to said third parties were
already instituted by petitioner.

As to the issue of alleged lack of prior consent of petitioner to the aforesaid sales as the surviving
spouses with a 50% conjugal share in the subject properties, respondents point out that such is
belied by the October 31, 2006 Order of the intestate court, which clearly showed that counsels
of all the heirs were present at the hearing of June 16, 2006 and no objection was made by them
to the sale of the properties and the partial settlement of the Estate of Beatriz S. Silverio, together
with the transfer of titles of these properties in the name of the Estate as prayed for in petitioner’s
Manifestation and Motion dated April 19, 2006. Petitioner had not challenged or appealed the
said order authorizing the sale of the subject properties. Thus, it is too late in the day for
petitioner to raise this factual issue before this Court, not to mention that it cannot be ventilated
in the present appeal by certiorari as this Court is not a trier of facts.

Respondent ZEE2 Resources Corporation filed its Comment contending that the intestate court
improperly nullified the titles despite the fact that the present registered owners, who are
indispensable parties, were not impleaded. Indeed, a
196

196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked and may be cancelled only in a direct proceeding
brought for the purpose. Respondent points out that petitioner himself recognized that a direct
action is required to annul a Torrens title as he initially instituted two civil complaints before the
RTC of Makati City seeking to annul, among others, the TCT’s issued to respondent Ocampo for
the Cambridge property. After failing to secure restraining orders in these two civil cases,
petitioner filed in the intestate court his Urgent Omnibus Motion dated February 14, 2011 to
annul the said titles, including that of ZEE2. In any case, respondent maintains that it is a buyer
of good faith and for value, of which the intestate court never made a determination nor did the
aforesaid Urgent Omnibus Motion and Supplement to the Omnibus Motion dated March 4, 2011
contain allegations indicating that respondent ZEE2 was not a buyer in good faith and for value.

According to respondent ZEE2, petitioner’s act of filing a separate complaint with application
for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction on January 31, 2011 in
another court (Civil Case No. 11-084 of the RTC of Makati City, Branch 143) constitutes willful
and deliberate forum shopping as the former also prayed similar primary reliefs and setting up
the alleged nullity of the subject deeds of absolute sale as those raised in the Urgent Omnibus
Motion and Supplement to the Urgent Omnibus Motion filed in the intestate 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. Thus we held in Lee v.
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 85:6

_______________

6 467 Phil. 997, 1016-1017; 423 SCRA 497, 513-514 (2004).

197

VOL. 733, AUGUST 13, 2014 197


Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

Juliana Ortañez and Jose Ortañez sold specific properties of the estate, without court approval. It
is well-settled that court approval is necessary for the validity of any disposition of the
decedent’s estate. In the early case of Godoy v. Orellano, we laid down the rule that the sale of
the property of the estate by an administrator without the order of the probate court is void and
passes no title to the purchaser. And in the case of Dillena v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that:
xxxx

It 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.
As early as 1921 in the case of Godoy v. Orellano (42 Phil 347), We laid down the rule that a
sale by an administrator of property of the deceased, which is not authorized by the probate court
is null and void and title does not pass to the purchaser.

There is hardly any doubt that the probate court can declare null and void the disposition of the
property under administration, made by private respondent, the same having been effected
without authority from said court. It is the probate court that has the power to authorize and/or
approve the sale (Sections 4 and 7, Rule 89), hence, a fortiori, it is said court that can declare
it null and void for as long as the proceedings had not been closed or terminated. To uphold
petitioner’s contention that the probate court cannot annul the unauthorized sale, would render
meaningless the power pertaining to the said court. (Bonga v. Soler, 2 SCRA 755). (italics ours)

Our jurisprudence is therefore clear that (1) any disposition of estate property by an administrator
or pro

198

198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

spective heir pending final adjudication requires court approval and (2) any unauthorized
disposition of estate property can be annulled by the probate court, there being no need for a
separate action to annul the unauthorized disposition. (Emphasis supplied)

In this case, the sale of the subject properties was executed by respondent Silverio, Jr. with
prior approval of the intestate court under its Omnibus Order dated October 31, 2006.
Subsequently, however, the sale was annulled by the said court on motion by petitioner.

In 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 C.A.-G.R. S.P. 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.

The CA’s ruling on this issue is hereunder quoted:

The more crucial question that needs to be addressed is: Whether the authority to sell the
properties in question granted under the October 31, 2006 Omnibus Order, was nullified by the
decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 97196. A look at the dispositive portion
of the decision in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 97196 would lead us to reasonably conclude that the grant
of authority to sell is still good and valid. The fallo of the decision reads:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The portions of the Omnibus Order upholding the
grant of letters of administration to and the taking of an oath of administration by Ricardo
Silverio, Jr., as well

199
VOL. 733, AUGUST 13, 2014 199
Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

as the removal of Ricardo Silverio, Sr. as administrator to the Estate of Beatriz Silverio, are
declared NULL and VOID. The writ of preliminary injunction earlier issued is made permanent
in regard to the said portions. Respondent RTC is ORDERED to reinstate Ricardo Silverio, Sr. as
administrator of the Estate of Beatriz Silverio. Costs against the Private Respondents.

SO ORDERED.”

The October 31, 2006 Omnibus Order of the testate [sic] court insofar 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. It is axiomatic that it is the dispositive portion of the decision that
finally invests rights upon the parties, sets conditions for the exercise of those rights, and
imposes the corresponding duties or obligations.

From all the foregoing, We declare that it was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
intestate court when it ordered the sale of the Cambridge Property and Intsia Property as NULL
and VOID citing as justification the decision of the Court of Appeals, Seventh Division in C.A.--
G.R. S.P. No. 97196. To reiterate, the injunction order which was made permanent by the
Court of Appeals (Seventh Division) was declared to be limited only to the portion of the
Omnibus Order that upheld the grant of letters of administration by SILVERIO, JR. and
the removal of SILVERIO, SR. as administrator and nothing else.

Anent the preliminary injunction issued by the intestate court in its Order dated 23 March 2011
and challenged by SILVERIO, JR. in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 121173, we find that it was issued with
grave abuse of discretion as it was directed against acts which were already [fait] accompli. The
preliminary injunction sought to: 1) restrain SILVERIO, JR., their agents, or anybody acting in
their behalf or any person from committing any act that would affect the titles to the subject
properties belonging

200
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

to the Intestate Estate of the late Beatriz Silverio and (2) enjoining the Register of Deeds of
Makati City from accepting, admitting, approving, registering, annotating or in any giving due
course to whatever deeds, instruments or any other documents involving voluntary or
involuntary dealings which may have the effect of transferring, conveying, encumbering, ceding,
waiving, alienating or disposing in favor of any individual or any entity the above enumerated
properties belonging to the Intestate Estate of the late Beatriz Silverio. However, the records
show that when the preliminary injunction was issued on 23 March 2011 new titles over the
disputed properties were already issued to CITRINE HOLDINGS, INC. and ZEE2
RESOURCES, INC.7 (Emphasis supplied)

We affirm the CA.

It bears to stress that the October 31, 2006 Omnibus Order was issued by the intestate court
acting upon pending motions filed by petitioner and respondent Silverio, Jr., father and son,
respectively, who are the central figures in the now decade-old controversy over the Intestate
Estate of the late Beatriz S. Silverio. The intestate court flip-flopped in appointing as
administrator of the estate petitioner and respondent Silverio, Jr., their personal conflicts
becoming more evident to the intestate court as the proceedings suffered delays. At the hearing
of the urgent motion filed by Edmundo Silverio to sell the subject properties and partially settle
the estate, the much awaited opportunity came when the heirs represented by their respective
counsels interposed no objection to the same.

While it is true that petitioner was eventually reinstated as Administrator pursuant to the August
28, 2008 decision in C.A.-G.R. S.P. 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

_______________

7 Rollo, pp. 47-49.

201

VOL. 733, AUGUST 13, 2014 201


Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

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).
The CA therefore did not err in reversing the August 18, 2011 Order of the intestate court
annulling the sale of the subject properties grounded solely on the injunction issued in C.A.-G.R.
S.P. No. 97196. Respondents Ocampo, Citrine and ZEE2 should not be prejudiced by the flip-
flopping appointment of Administrator by the intestate court, having relied in good faith that the
sale was authorized and with prior approval of the intestate court under its Omnibus Order dated
October 31, 2006 which remained valid and subsisting insofar as it allowed the aforesaid sale.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 8, 2013 and Resolution
dated July 4, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. Nos. 121173 and 122024 are
AFFIRMED.

With costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Carpio,** Bersamin and Mendoza,*** JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

_______________

* * Designated additional member per Raffle dated August 11, 2014.

* ** Designated additional member per Special Order No. 1738 dated July 31, 2014.

202

202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

Notes.—Our laws do not prohibit the probate of wills executed by foreigners abroad although
the same have not as yet been probated and allowed in the countries of their execution.
(Palaganas vs. Palaganas, 640 SCRA 538 [2011])

The rule is that as long as the order for the distribution of the estate has not been complied with,
the probate proceedings cannot be deemed closed and terminated. (Sabidong vs. Solas, 699
SCRA 303 [2013])

——o0o——