Professional Documents
Culture Documents
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
184
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c938152f99a4da2f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/18
8/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 733
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.
_______________
186
The Petitions
187
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c938152f99a4da2f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/18
8/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 733
188
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c938152f99a4da2f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/18
8/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 733
189
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) x x x
(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
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c938152f99a4da2f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/18
8/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 733
191
192
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c938152f99a4da2f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/18
8/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 733
193
_______________
194
_______________
195
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c938152f99a4da2f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/18
8/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 733
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c938152f99a4da2f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/18
8/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 733
_______________
197
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c938152f99a4da2f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/18
8/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 733
198
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c938152f99a4da2f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/18
8/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 733
199
200
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c938152f99a4da2f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/18
8/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 733
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
_______________
201
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c938152f99a4da2f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/18
8/15/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 733
_______________
202
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c938152f99a4da2f5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/18