G.R. No. 188921 - Romero vs. Court of Appeals

Parties and procedural background
Petitioners are Leo C. Romero and David Amando C. Romero, compulsory heirs of the late Judge Dante Y. Romero; respondents are Aurora C. Romero (their mother and administrator of the estate) and Vittorio C. Romero (their brother).
Petitioners filed a Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals’ Decision (April 14, 2009) and Resolution (July 21, 2009) that dismissed their certiorari petition under Rule 65. The certiorari petition assailed two RTC Resolutions (December 14, 2007 and January 29, 2008) which had dismissed their Complaint for Annulment of Sale.

Underlying dispute over estate properties
Upon their father’s death on October 18, 1974, Aurora was appointed legal guardian and has since administered various conjugal and other properties in trust for her children.
In 2005–2006, petitioners discovered that Aurora had executed several Deeds of Sale, allegedly under duress, fraud, misrepresentation and drugging by Vittorio, transferring purported conjugal properties to him and registering titles in his name.
On December 18, 2006, petitioners filed an Amended Complaint for Annulment of Sale, Nullification of Title, and Reconveyance, alleging the transactions were simulated, void for lack of consent and consideration, and deprived them of their rightful shares.
Respondents countered that the properties were acquired after 1974 (hence paraphernal), or sold by Aurora as attorney-in-fact, and that Vittorio merely redeemed mortgaged parcels.
The RTC dismissed the Complaint, ruling it lacked jurisdiction while intestate proceedings (Special Proceedings No. 5185) for distribution of the estate were pending, citing Section 3, Rule 87, which bars heirs from suing until shares are assigned. The CA affirmed this dismissal.

Whether petitioners may maintain a separate civil action for annulment of sale and reconveyance of title despite the pendency of the intestate proceedings for their father’s estate.