G.R. No. L-33172 - Cease vs. Court of Appeals

June 1908: Forrest L. Cease and five American citizens organized the Tiaong Milling and Plantation Company; Forrest Cease subsequently bought out all co-incorporators.
The company acquired various properties; its corporate charter lapsed in June 1958 without any formal record of liquidation.

August 13, 1959: Forrest L. Cease died. By extrajudicial partition of shares on October 19, 1959, his six children (Ernesto, Cecilia, Marion, Teresa, Benjamin, Florence) and a family associate (Bonifacia Tirante) received his stockholdings. Conflict arose as Benjamin and Florence sought actual division while the other heirs favored reincorporation.
December 9, 1959: Ernesto, Teresita, Cecilia Cease and Bonifacia Tirante formed the F.L. Cease Plantation Co., Inc., registering it with the SEC as trustee of the defunct corporation’s properties.

April 21, 1960: Benjamin and Florence instituted Special Proceeding No. 3893 in the CFI of Tayabas for estate administration of Forrest Cease.
May 19, 1960: They filed Civil Case No. 6326 in the CFI of Quezon against Ernesto, Teresita, Cecilia Cease and Bonifacia Tirante, praying that Tiaong Milling be declared identical with F.L. Cease Plantation Co., its properties be declared estate assets and partitioned among the six heirs.
May 21, 1961: On the eve of the three-year liquidation period under Act 1459, the board of liquidators assigned and conveyed all Tiaong Milling properties to F.L. Cease Plantation Co., Inc. as trustee; the CFI judge ordered the trustee included as a defendant.
The cases (Sp. Proc. 3893 and Civ. Case 6326) were consolidated before Judge Manolo L. Maddela. Upon a stipulation of facts, the trial was submitted.
December 27, 1969: Judge Maddela rendered judgment for Benjamin and Florence, declaring:

Tiaong Milling’s assets (now held by the trustee) are part of Forrest Cease’s estate; to be divided equally among his six children.
The October 12, 1959 Resolution to Sell and trust agreement void.
Removal of F.L. Cease Plantation Co., Inc. as trustee and appointment of a neutral receiver.
Termination and dismissal of Special Proceeding No. 3893; Civil Case 6326 to proceed only on damages and partition matters.

January 1970: Defendants filed notice of appeal and bond.
April 27, 1970: Trial court dismissed the appeal as interlocutory, disapproving the record on appeal.
May 20, 1970: Petitioners sought mandamus, certiorari and prohibition relief from the Supreme Court; SC remanded to the CA on May 27, 1970.
July 1, 1970: Court of Appeals dismissed the mandamus portion; August 19, 1970: allowed certiorari and prohibition aspects to proceed.
December 9, 1970: CA (Special Seventh Division) dismissed the petition with costs.

G.R. No. L-35629 (1972): Petitioners challenged the appointment of a branch clerk as receiver; SC denied relief (Nov 13, 1972) but expressed displeasure at court personnel acting as receiver.
January 29, 1975: SC issued a TRO restraining implementation of the CFI decision; April 11, 1975: TRO lifted.
February 6, 1976: Private respondents’ petition against replacement of receiver denied by SC on February 18, 1976.
1975–1976: A tentative compromise was drafted (July 30, 1975) but repudiated in court, resulting in a contempt citation.

Did the trial court exceed its jurisdiction by simultaneously adjudicating estate administration (Sp. Proc. 3893) and partition (Civ. Case 6326)?
Was the dismissal of the administration proceeding proper despite separate docketing?

Could the assets registered in the name of the defunct Tiaong Milling (and thereafter in the trustee’s name) be treated as part of Forrest Cease’s estate?
Was there sufficient evidence to justify piercing the corporate veil and merging Tiaong Milling’s assets with the decedent’s estate?

Was the lower court’s December 27, 1969 decision final or interlocutory under the Rules of Court, particularly Rule 69?
Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the dismissal of the petition for mandamus, certiorari and prohibition on the ground of interlocutory nature?