You are on page 1of 10

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

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.

DECISION

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 set aside the Decision1 dated March 8, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
insofar as CA-G.R. SP 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 ofthe 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.

The Petitions

CA-G.R. SP No. 121172

The first petition of the three consolidated petitions is CA-G.R. SP No. 121172 wherein petitioner,
RICARDO S. SILVERIO JR. ("SILVERIO JR.") assails the Order ofthe 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.
Inthe 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 October
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 CA-G.R. SP 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 Certioraribefore 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 inthe 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
administrator 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. xxx."
xxxx

CA-G.R. SP 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 reconsideration but the same was denied in an
order dated 14 June 2011. Hence, the instant petition.

xxxx

CA-G.R. SP 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) xxx

(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 todistribute 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, Edmundo S. Silverio and Nelia S. SilverioDee 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
Salein 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 toMonica 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 certioraribefore the Court
of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP 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 issueda 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 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. SilverioSr. 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 testificandumand duces
tecumwas 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.
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-interestincluding 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 ofMakati City to CANCEL Transfer Certificate ofTitle 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


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: CA-G.R. SP No. 121172 –
Order dated June 16, 2011 reinstating Silverio, Sr. as Administrator; CA-G.R. SP 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 CA-G.R. SP No. 122024 – Order dated
August 18, 2011 declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale, TCT and all derivative titles over the
Cambridge and Intsiaproperties as null and void.

On March 8, 2013, the CA rendered its Decision, the falloof which reads:
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the Court hereby disposes and orders the
following:

1. The petition in CA G.R. SP No. 121172is DENIEDfor lack of merit. Accordingly, the 16
June 2011 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 CA GR. S.P. No. 121173is partly DENIEDfor 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
GRANTEDin that the Preliminary Injunction issued by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City,
Branch 57 is herebydeclared NULL and VOID for being issued with grave abuse of
discretion.

3. The petition in CA G.R.-S.P. No. 122024is 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 REVERSEDand SET
ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.4

Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. (petitioner) filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration5 "insofar as its ruling in
CA-G.R. SP 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 thatthe CA committed a reversible error in upholding the validity of
the Intsia and Cambridgeproperties upon the ground that the intestate court cannotannul the sales
as it has a limited jurisdiction only and which does not includeresolving issues of ownership. It is
asserted that the CA should nothave 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.

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 settlementof 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 ofprior 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 thisCourt 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 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 thata direct action is required to annul a Torrens title ashe 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 OmnibusMotion 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 Nos. 11-084 of the RTC of Makati City, Branch 143) constitutes willful and deliberate
forum shopping asthe former also prayedsimilar 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 856:

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 vs. 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 vs. Court of Appeals, we ruled that: x x x x

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.
Asearly as 1921 in the case of Godoy vs. 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 (Section 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 vs. Soler, 2 SCRA 755). (italics ours) 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. (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 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.

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 CA-G.R. SP No. 97196. A look at the dispositive portion of the decision in CA-
G.R. SP 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
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 in so far as it authorizes the saleof
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 CAG.R. SP 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 ofthe Omnibus Order that upheld
the grant of letters of administrationby 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 CA-G.R. SP 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 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 CA-G.R. SP No. 97196 (petition for certiorari filed by Nelia Silverio-Dee), weagree
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 denyinghis petition for review (G.R. No.
185619). 1âwphi 1

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 CA-G.R. SP 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 CAG.R. SP Nos. 121173 and 122024 are AFFIRMED.

With costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.


Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO


Chief Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO* LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA**


Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO


Chief Justice

Footnotes