Case Summary (G.R. No. 178933)
Petitioner
Ricardo S. Silverio, Jr., an heir of the late Beatriz D. Silverio, appointed administrator of her intestate estate on January 3, 2005.
Respondents
• Court of Appeals (Fifth Division)
• Nelia S. Silverio-Dee, challenging the enforcement of a trial court order to vacate estate property
Key Dates
• November 16, 2004 – Petition filed to remove Sr. as administrator
• January 3, 2005 – RTC appoints Jr. as administrator
• May 31, 2005 – RTC issues Omnibus Order directing Dee to vacate property
• December 12, 2005 – RTC denies Dee’s reconsideration and reinstates Sr. as administrator
• January 6, 2006 – Notice of Appeal filed by Dee
• April 2, 2007 – RTC denies due course to Dee’s appeal; issues writ of execution and notice to vacate
• May 4, 2007 – CA grants TRO enjoining enforcement
• July 6, 2007 – CA sets aside RTC’s orders and directs acceptance of Dee’s appeal
• September 16, 2009 – Supreme Court renders final decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered in 2009)
• Rules of Court: Rule 65 (certiorari), Rule 41 §§ 1, 3 (appeals from RTC), Rule 84 § 2, Rule 90 § 1
• Civil Code: Arts. 493, 1078 (co-ownership and inheritance rights)
• Jurisprudence: Neypes v. CA; Sumaway v. Union Bank; Apuyan v. Haldeman; Tan v. Republic; Alejandrino v. CA
Nature of the Petition
Petitioner seeks review under Rule 65 to overturn the CA’s Resolution of May 4, 2007 granting a TRO against enforcement of an RTC order and its July 6, 2007 Decision annulling the writ of execution and notice to vacate, thereby compelling the trial court to accept Dee’s belated appeal.
Estate Proceedings and Administrator Appointments
Upon Beatriz Silverio’s death, Sr. commenced intestate proceedings (SP Proc. No. M-2629). Jr. successfully moved for Sr.’s removal and his own appointment as administrator on January 3, 2005. Dee’s motion for reconsideration of that appointment was denied in the RTC’s May 31, 2005 Omnibus Order, which directed her to vacate a Forbes Park property within 15 days.
Motions, Reconsideration, and Subsequent Orders
Dee filed reconsideration of the Omnibus Order on June 16, 2005. The RTC denied it on December 12, 2005, reinstated Sr. as administrator, and on October 31, 2006 authorized sale of estate properties—including the Forbes Park house—to satisfy estate obligations.
Appeal Filing and Denial of Due Course
Dee lodged a Notice of Appeal on January 6, 2006, and the Record on Appeal on January 23. Jr. moved to dismiss the appeal for lateness under Rule 41, § 3. On April 2, 2007 the RTC ruled Dee’s appeal was both from a non-appealable order denying reconsideration (Rule 41, § 1) and filed out of time, thus denying due course, issuing a writ of execution (April 17) and a notice to vacate (April 19).
CA TRO and Decision on Appealability
On May 2, 2007 Dee petitioned the CA for certiorari and TRO. The CA granted a TRO on May 4, applying the “fresh rule period” from Neypes and Sumaway to deem her appeal timely, and on July 6, 2007 annulled the RTC’s orders and directed acceptance of her appeal.
Issue: Appealability of the Omnibus Order
Petitioner contends the May 31, 2005 Omnibus Order was interlocutory and not appealable under Rule 41, § 1. Dee’s remedy should have been certiorari under Rule 65, not a direct appeal. The CA relied on Apuyan v. Haldeman to treat denial of reconsideration as a final, appealable order, but that approach misreads the distinction between interlocutory and final orders.
Interlocutory versus Final Order Analysis
An interlocutory order does not finally dispose of the case or any matter therein. Here, the Omnibus Order merely directed vacatur pending final estate settlement and did not determine the distribution of estate assets or Dee’s share. Estate properties remain u
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 178933)
Nature of the Case
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
- Seeks reversal of the Court of Appeals’ May 4, 2007 Resolution and July 6, 2007 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 98764.
- Involves private respondent’s challenge to:
- Denial of appeal by the RTC in an April 2, 2007 Order
- Writ of Execution dated April 17, 2007
- Notice to Vacate dated April 19, 2007
Context and Parties
- Petitioner: Ricardo S. Silverio, Jr., administrator of the intestate estate of Beatriz D. Silverio.
- Private Respondent: Nelia S. Silverio-Dee, heir and occupant of estate property.
- Public Respondent: Reinato G. Quilala, Presiding Judge, RTC Makati, Branch 57.
- Impleaded as necessary party: Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr., surviving spouse and former administrator.
- Subject property: Lot No. 3 Intsia Road, Forbes Park, Makati City.
Factual Background
- Beatriz D. Silverio dies intestate; surviving spouse Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. petitions for settlement of estate (SP Proc. No. M-2629).
- Nov. 16, 2004: Ricardo S. Silverio, Jr. moves to remove Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. as administrator.
- Jan. 3, 2005: RTC grants removal of Sr. and appoints Jr. as administrator.
- Jan. 26, 2005: Nelia S. Silverio-Dee moves for reconsideration of the Jan. 3, 2005 Order.
- Feb. 4, 2005: Ricardo Jr. files urgent motion prohibiting unauthorized occupation of estate properties.
Omnibus Order and Vacating Instruction
- May 31, 2005: RTC issues Omnibus Order:
- Affirms removal of Sr. and appointment of Jr.
- Denies petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- Directs Nelia Silverio-Dee to vacate No. 3 Intsia Road within 15 days.
- June 8, 2005: Nelia receives copy of Omnibus Order.
- June 16, 2005: Nelia files Motion for Reconsideration of May 31, 2005 Order.
Subsequent RTC Orders
- Dec. 12, 2005: RTC denies Nelia’s motion for reconsideration and:
- Recalls appointment of Jr. as administrator.
- Reinstates Sr. as administrator.
- Oct. 31, 20