View full case

RICARDO S. SILVERIO v. CA

FACTS:

This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking the reversal of the Resolution and Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in a case entitled Nelia S. Silverio-Dee and Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. v. Reinato G. Quilala, Ricardo S. Silverio, Jr., Edmundo S. Silverio, and Sheriff Villamor R. Villegas. The dispute arose from the settlement of the estate of Beatriz Silverio. Ricardo Silverio, Sr., the surviving spouse, filed an intestate proceeding for the settlement of her estate. During the pendency of the case, Ricardo Silverio, Jr. filed a petition to remove his father as administrator of the estate. The court granted the petition and appointed Ricardo Silverio, Jr. as the new administrator. Nelia Silverio-Dee filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. The court then issued an Omnibus Order affirming the removal of Ricardo Silverio, Sr. as administrator and directing Nelia Silverio-Dee to vacate a property within 15 days. Nelia Silverio-Dee received a copy of the Omnibus Order on June 8, 2005. She filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied on December 12, 2005. The court also recalled its previous order appointing Ricardo Silverio, Jr. as administrator. Ricardo Silverio, Jr. filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. The court issued a writ of execution and a notice to vacate against Nelia Silverio-Dee. She filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA, which granted her petition and set aside the writ of execution and notice to vacate. The court directed the lower court to give due course to Nelia Silverio-Dee's appeal.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the appeal filed by Nelia Silverio-Dee is proper.

  2. Whether the Omnibus Order dated May 31, 2005 is an interlocutory order or a final order.

  3. Whether the authority of Nelia Silverio-Dee to take possession of the subject property was valid without prior approval from the probate court.

RULING:

  1. The appeal filed by Nelia Silverio-Dee is not proper.

  2. The court ruled that the Omnibus Order dated May 31, 2005 is a final order. An interlocutory order is one that does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something to be decided upon, while a final order disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action. In this case, the order directed the petitioner to vacate the premises of the property and did not completely resolve the issue of distribution of the shares of the heirs in the estate or their rights therein. Therefore, the order cannot be considered a final determination of the case or issue. The court also noted that until the estate is partitioned, each heir only has an inchoate right to the properties of the estate, and no heir may lay claim on a particular property until the partition is made.

  3. The purported authority of Nelia Silverio-Dee, which she allegedly secured from Ricardo Silverio, Sr., was never approved by the probate court. She, therefore, never had any real interest in the specific property. The May 31, 2005 Order of the RTC must be considered as interlocutory and, therefore, not subject to an appeal. The case should have been dismissed for employing the wrong mode of appeal. The notice of appeal did not toll the reglementary period for the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the proper remedy in the instant case. Private respondent has now lost her remedy of appeal from the May 31, 2005 Order of the RTC. Therefore, there is no longer any need to consider the other issues raised in the petition.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration is not appealable, except when it pertains to a final order that completely disposes of the case or a particular matter therein. (Sec. 1(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court)

  • The rationale behind the rule proscribing the remedy of appeal from an interlocutory order is to prevent undue delay, useless appeals, and inconvenience to the appealing party. The appropriate remedy is to wait for the final judgment or order and assign the interlocutory order as an error of the court on appeal.

  • An order denying a motion for reconsideration of an order of dismissal of a complaint is not an interlocutory order, but a final order, as it puts an end to the particular matter resolved and nothing is left for the trial court to do other than to execute the order.

  • An interlocutory order is one that does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something to be decided upon.

  • A final order is one that disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action.

  • An interlocutory order generally cannot be appealed separately from the judgment, but can be included in the appeal of the judgment itself.

  • An interlocutory order may be subject to certiorari under Rule 65 if it was rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

  • Until the estate is partitioned, each heir only has an inchoate right to the properties of the estate, and no heir may lay claim on a particular property.

  • The right of an heir over the property of the decedent is inchoate as long as the estate has not been fully settled and partitioned.

  • Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign, or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved.

  • The administrator may only deliver properties of the estate to the heirs upon the order of the Court.

  • The properties of the estate shall only be distributed after the payment of the debts, funeral charges, and other expenses against the estate, except when authorized by the Court.

  • Once an action for the settlement of an estate is filed with the court, the properties included therein are under the control of the intestate court, and not even the administrator may take possession of any property that is part of the estate without the prior authority of the Court.