Title
Profeta vs. David
Case
G.R. No. 47736
Decision Date
Apr 18, 1941
The Court of First Instance of Cavite improperly granted a license to sell a lot from an intestate estate without requisite notice and consent, prompting a writ of certiorari from the direct heirs.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 47736)

Facts:

  • Cosme Profeta and other petitioners filed a petition against Judge Jose Gutierrez David, the Provincial Sheriff of Cavite, and Eduviges Bonus.
  • The petition sought a writ of certiorari with an injunction to stop the enforcement of court orders from August 27 and September 2, 1940, in civil case No. 3690.
  • The orders required the petitioners to surrender possession of lots Nos. 1878 and 1879 to Eduviges Bonus.
  • The case originated from the death of Teodora Bocalan on November 30, 1932, who had three legitimate children: Bonifacio, Cosme, and Hermenegildo Profeta.
  • After Bonifacio's death, his children and Cosme became petitioners.
  • Hermenegildo was appointed as the general administrator of Teodora's estate in civil case No. 2697 and was granted a license to sell lot No. 1878 on November 14, 1935, to settle debts.
  • The sale was confirmed and registered, with proceeds used to pay estate claims.
  • The petitioners did not appeal the court's orders regarding the sale or the administrator's accounts.
  • Hermenegildo died on May 23, 1939, leaving Eduviges Bonus as his widow.
  • The dispute arose over the possession of lots Nos. 1878 and 1879, with petitioners claiming inheritance and Eduviges asserting rightful possession.
  • Eduviges filed a motion for possession in civil case No. 3690, which the court granted.
  • The petitioners alleged the court acted without jurisdiction and abused its discretion, claiming lot No. 1879 was fraudulently acquired by Hermenegildo.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari and dissolved the preliminary injunction, imposing costs on the petitioners.
  • The court ruled that the petitioners&#...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court stated that the petitioners could not seek relief through certiorari as they neglected to appeal the orders granting the license to sell lot No. 1878.
  • The court noted that a license to sell real estate in adminis...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.