G.R. No. 101512 - Gabriel vs. Court of Appeals

Domingo Gabriel died on August 6, 1987.
On May 12, 1988—nine months later—his illegitimate son, Roberto Dindo Gabriel, filed a petition in RTC Manila, Branch XI, for letters of administration, alleging his fitness and naming eight other heirs.

The court set the hearing on June 29, 1988, and directed publication in Mabuhay for three weeks; no oppositions were filed.
On July 8, 1988, Roberto was appointed administrator on a ₱30,000 bond.
A notice to creditors was published; Aida Valencia (the decedent’s mother) filed a creditor’s claim.
Roberto filed an inventory and appraisal on December 12, 1988, valuing the estate at ₱18.96 million (hearing set January 16, 1989).

On February 2, 1989, six petitioners (Nilda, Eva, Boy, George, Rosemarie, Maribel Gabriel) moved to recall Roberto’s letters and appoint Nilda or themselves.
On May 20, 1989, petitioners supplemented their opposition, alleging lack of personal notice, preference of legitimate over illegitimate heirs, conflict of interest, and prior property relinquishments.
The probate court denied opposition on September 21, 1989 (no proof of Nilda’s legitimacy; Roberto unincapacitated). Reconsideration was denied on December 22, 1989.

Petitioners filed a certiorari petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 19797; the CA, on August 23, 1991, dismissed it for lack of grave abuse of discretion and because preference errors are appealable.
Petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, contending that under Section 6, Rule 78, the widow (Felicitas Jose-Gabriel) and the legitimate daughter (Nilda) should have preference over Roberto.

Whether the probate court gravely abused discretion by appointing an illegitimate son over the surviving spouse and a legitimate daughter.
Whether Felicitas Jose-Gabriel’s failure to apply within 30 days after the decedent’s death disqualifies her from administration.

Whether alleged violations of the order of preference constitute lack/excess of jurisdiction justifying certiorari.
Whether errors of fact or law in appointment are correctible by appeal rather than by certiorari.