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

8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 733
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.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016c6d0370cff70899e7003600fb002c009e/p/ASU676/?username=Guest 1/19
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
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
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

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

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

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——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

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

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

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

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

8/8/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 733

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

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; Probate Courts; The

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

erty under administration needs the approval of the probate

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

VOL. 733, AUGUST 13, 2014 185

set aside the Decision1 dated March 8, 2013 of the Court

The late Beatriz S. Silverio died without leaving a will on

1 Rollo, pp. 20-50. Penned by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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

VOL. 733, AUGUST 13, 2014 187

ber 2006 upholding the grant of Letters of Administration to

for gross violation of his duties and functions under Section 1,

188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ministrator of the estate. Acting on the motion, the intestate court

Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. is hereby ordered reinstated as the

VOL. 733, AUGUST 13, 2014 189

190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Edmundo S. Silverio and Nelia S. Silverio-Dee in accordance with

issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction conditioned upon the

VOL. 733, AUGUST 13, 2014 191

Preliminary Injunction permanent in regard to the appointment

approving, registering, annotating or in any way giving due

192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On 9 March 2011, SILVERIO, SR. filed a Supplement to the

VOL. 733, AUGUST 13, 2014 193

RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR. and the INTESTATE ESTATE OF

The consolidated petitions for certiorari filed by

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the Court

3 Id., at pp. 22-42.

194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Order of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 57

Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. (petitioner) filed a Motion for

4 Id., at pp. 49-50.

VOL. 733, AUGUST 13, 2014 195

Petitioner seeks the reinstatement of the order of the

registered owners, who are indispensable parties, were not

196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked and may be

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

VOL. 733, AUGUST 13, 2014 197

Juliana Ortañez and Jose Ortañez sold specific properties of

198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

spective heir pending final adjudication requires court approval

In this case, the sale of the subject properties was

The more crucial question that needs to be addressed is:

VOL. 733, AUGUST 13, 2014 199

Silverio, Sr. vs. Silverio, Jr.

as the removal of Ricardo Silverio, Sr. as administrator to the

200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

to the Intestate Estate of the late Beatriz Silverio and (2)

admitting, approving, registering, annotating or in any giving due

7 Rollo, pp. 47-49.

VOL. 733, AUGUST 13, 2014 201

its fallo, pertained only to the portions of the October 31,

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Carpio,** Bersamin and

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

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

202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED