View full case

RICARDO C. SILVERIO v. RICARDO S. SILVERIO

FACTS:

This case involves a probate case that started with the death of Beatriz S. Silverio in 1987. An intestate proceeding was filed to settle her estate, and various petitions and appeals were later filed, challenging different orders issued by the intestate court. The first petition before the Court of Appeals (CA) involved the reinstatement of Ricardo Silverio Sr. as the administrator of the estate. Ricardo Silverio Sr. filed a motion for reconsideration, and Nelia Silverio-Dee filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, which resulted in a decision reinstating Ricardo Silverio Sr. as administrator. Ricardo Silverio Jr. filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, but it was denied. Ricardo Silverio Sr. subsequently filed a motion to be reinstated as administrator, which the intestate court granted. The decision of the intestate court, reinstating Ricardo Silverio Sr. as administrator, is the subject of the present petition for review before the CA.

The heirs, represented by their legal guardian, sought the disqualification and/or inhibition of Judge Guanlao Jr. The reasons for disqualification included the absence of written consent from all parties allowing Judge Guanlao Jr. to continue hearing the case due to his previous appearance as counsel in the proceeding, bias and partiality in favor of Ricardo Silverio Sr., failure to resolve a petition for support, and the need for an impartial judge to preside over the proceedings. Judge Guanlao Jr. denied the motion for disqualification and/or inhibition, leading to the filing of the petition.

The intestate court issued an order for the sale of certain properties belonging to the estate. Two Deeds of Absolute Sale were executed for properties located in Forbes Park, Makati City, transferring ownership to Citrine Holdings, Inc. and Monica P. Ocampo. The Court of Appeals granted a Temporary Restraining Order and subsequently issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction in favor of Silverio-Dee, preventing any actions that would affect the titles to the properties. Ricardo Silverio Sr. filed an application for a Temporary Restraining Order and an omnibus motion seeking to nullify the Deed of Absolute Sale and cancel the transfer certificates of title. The intestate court granted a Temporary Restraining Order, enjoining Silverio Jr., Ocampo, Citrine Holdings, Inc., and their successors from affecting the titles to the properties and preventing the Register of Deeds of Makati City from approving any transactions involving the properties.

The intestate court issued a subpoena to Silverio Jr., Ocampo, and Alexandra Garcia of Citrine to provide books and documents related to the transaction involving the subject properties. Silverio Sr. filed a supplement to the omnibus motion, and later, the intestate court declared the Deed of Absolute Sale and various Transfer Certificates of Title void and ordered the cancellation of the said titles. The Register of Deeds of Makati City was ordered to reinstate the Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. and the Intestate Estate of the late Beatriz Silverio.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the intestate court had jurisdiction to annul the sales of the Cambridge and Intsia properties.

  2. Whether respondent Silverio, Jr. should be ordered to account for the proceeds of the sales for distribution among the legal/compulsory heirs.

  3. Whether or not the probate court has the authority to annul an unauthorized sale of estate property.

  4. Whether or not the sale of the subject properties was executed when the temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction were in effect.

  5. Whether the authority to sell the properties 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.

  6. Whether the preliminary injunction issued by the intestate court was valid.

  7. Whether or not the existence of probable cause is necessary before a judge can issue a warrant of arrest.

  8. Whether or not the application for a warrant of arrest should be personally endorsed by the prosecutor.

RULING:

  1. The Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in upholding the validity of the Intsia and Cambridge properties. The Court held that the intestate court had jurisdiction to annul the sales since it has the authority to determine the nature of the properties and resolve issues of ownership.

  2. The Court did not order respondent Silverio, Jr. to account for the proceeds of the sales for distribution among the legal/compulsory heirs. The Court did not find it necessary to rule on this issue since it upheld the validity of the sales of the properties.

  3. The probate court does have the authority to annul an unauthorized sale of estate property. Any disposition of estate property by an administrator or prospective heir pending final adjudication requires court approval, and any unauthorized disposition of estate property can be annulled by the probate court. There is no need for a separate action to annul the unauthorized disposition. Therefore, the sale of the subject properties can be annulled by the probate court.

  4. The Court of Appeals (CA) ruled that the eventual decision in another case, making the writ of preliminary injunction permanent only with respect to the appointment of the petitioner as administrator and not to the grant of authority to sell, mooted the issue of whether the sale was executed when the TRO and writ of preliminary injunction were in effect. Therefore, the CA reversed the probate court's annulment of the sale.

  5. The authority to sell the properties under the October 31, 2006 Omnibus Order was not nullified by the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 97196. The Court of Appeals' decision declared null and void only the portions of the Omnibus Order upholding the grant of letters of administration to Ricardo Silverio, Jr. and the removal of Ricardo Silverio, Sr. as administrator. The grant of authority to sell the properties was not declared null and void, and therefore remained valid and subsisting. The injunction order issued by the Court of Appeals was limited to the portions of the Omnibus Order mentioned above and did not extend to the authority to sell the properties.

  6. The preliminary injunction issued by the intestate court was issued with grave abuse of discretion as it was directed against acts which were already fait accompli. The preliminary injunction sought to restrain acts that had already been done, such as the issuance of new titles to the disputed properties. Therefore, the preliminary injunction was invalid.

  7. Yes, the existence of probable cause is necessary before a judge can issue a warrant of arrest. The judge must be convinced that there is a probable cause for the commission of the crime charged, based on the evidence submitted to him/her.

  8. No, the application for a warrant of arrest does not need to be personally endorsed by the prosecutor. The provision of the Rules of Court requiring such endorsement is merely directory and not mandatory.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The intestate court has the authority to determine the nature of the properties and resolve issues of ownership.

  • The Court may not rule on issues that are not necessary to the disposition of the case.

  • Any disposition of estate property by an administrator or prospective heir pending final adjudication requires court approval.

  • Any unauthorized disposition of estate property can be annulled by the probate court.

  • The probate court has the authority to annul an unauthorized sale of estate property.

  • A direct action is required to annul a Torrens title.

  • A Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked and may only be cancelled in a direct proceeding brought for the purpose.

  • A buyer of good faith and for value is protected even if the sale is subsequently annulled by the probate court.

  • The dispositive portion of a decision is what finally invests rights upon the parties and imposes corresponding duties or obligations.

  • The permanent injunction issued by the Court of Appeals was limited to the portions of the October 31, 2006 Omnibus Order upholding the grant of letters of administration and the removal of the administrator, and did not nullify the authority to sell the properties.

  • A preliminary injunction should not be directed against acts that have already been done.

  • The issuance of a warrant of arrest requires the existence of probable cause.

  • The requirement of personal endorsement by the prosecutor for an application of a warrant of arrest is not mandatory.