FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 208828-29. August 13, 2014.]

RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR. , petitioner, vs. RICARDO S.

SILVERIO, JR., CITRINE HOLDINGS, INC., MONICA P.
OCAMPO and ZEE2 RESOURCES, INC., respondents.

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J : p

Before the Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, to reverse and set aside the Decision 1
dated March 8, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) insofar as CA-G.R. SP Nos.
121173 and 122024 are concerned, and Resolution 2 dated July 4, 2013
denying petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration. The CA nullified the
preliminary injunction issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City
("intestate court"), Branch 57 in Sp. Proc. No. M-2629 and reversed said
court's Order dated August 18, 2011 declaring the sales and derivative titles
over two properties subject of intestate proceedings as null and void.
The factual and procedural antecedents of the case, as summarized by
the CA, are as follows:
The late Beatriz S. Silverio died without leaving a will on October
7, 1987. She was survived by her legal heirs, namely: Ricardo C.
Silverio, Sr. (husband), Edmundo S. Silverio (son), Edgardo S. Silverio
(son), Ricardo S. Silverio, Jr. (son), Nelia S. Silverio-Dee (daughter), and
Ligaya S. Silverio (daughter). Subsequently, an intestate proceeding
(SP PROC. NO. M-2629) for the settlement of her estate was filed by
SILVERIO, SR.
In the course of the proceedings, the parties filed different
petitions and appeal challenging several orders of the intestate court
that went all the way up to the Supreme Court. To better understand
the myriad of factual and procedural antecedents leading to the instant
consolidated case, this court will resolve the petitions in seriatim.
The Petitions

CA-G.R. SP No. 121172

The first petition of the three consolidated petitions is CA-G.R. SP

No. 121172 wherein petitioner, RICARDO S. SILVERIO JR. ("SILVERIO
JR.") assails the Order of the intestate court dated 16 June 2011
reinstating RICARDO SILVERIO SR. ("SILVERIO SR.") as administrator to
the estate of the late Beatriz Silverio.
The administrator first appointed by the Court was EDGARDO
SILVERIO ("EDGARDO"), but by virtue of a Joint Manifestation dated 3
November 1999 filed by the heirs of BEATRIZ D. SILVERIO, the motion
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 to withdraw as administrator filed by EDGARDO was approved by the
intestate court and in his stead, SILVERIO SR. was appointed as the
new administrator. SIcTAC

Thereafter, an active exchange of pleadings to remove and

appoint a new administrator ensued between SILVERIO SR. and
SILVERIO JR. The flip-flopping appointment of administrator is
summarized below:
In an Order dated 3 January 2005, SILVERIO SR. was removed as
administrator and in his stead, SILVERIO, JR. was designated as the
new administrator. A motion for reconsideration was separately filed by
SILVERIO SR. and Nelia Silverio-Dee ("SILVERIO-DEE") and on 31 May
2005, the intestate court issued an Omnibus Order affirming among
others, the Order of 3 January 2005. In the same Order, the intestate
court also granted the motion of SILVERIO JR. to take his oath as
administrator effective upon receipt of the order and expunged the
inventory report filed by SILVERIO SR.
On 12 December 2005 the intestate court acting on the motion
filed by SILVERIO SR. recalled the Order granting letters of
administration to SILVERIO JR. and reinstated SILVERIO SR. as
administrator. Then again, the intestate court acting on the motion for
partial consideration to the Order dated 12 December 2005 filed by
SILVERIO JR. issued an Omnibus Order dated 31 October 2006
upholding the grant of Letters of Administration to SILVERIO JR. and
removed SILVERIO SR., as administrator for gross violation of his duties
and functions under Section 1, Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.
SILVERIO SR. moved for reconsideration of the above Order
whereas SILVERIO-DEE on the other hand, filed a Petition for Certiorari
before the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 97196. On 28
August 2008, the Court of Appeals (Seventh Division) rendered a
decision reinstating SILVERIO, SR. as administrator, the decretal portion
of the Order reads:
"WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The portions of the
Omnibus Order upholding the grant of letters of administration to
and the taking of an oath of administration by Ricardo Silverio,
Jr., as well as the removal of Ricardo Silverio, Sr. as administrator
to the Estate of Beatriz Silverio, are declared NULL and VOID. The
writ of preliminary injunction earlier issued is MADE PERMANENT
in regard to the said portions. Respondent RTC is ORDERED to
reinstate Ricardo Silverio, Sr. as administrator to the Estate of
Beatriz Silverio. Costs against the Private Respondents.

SO ORDERED."

SILVERIO JR. filed a Petition for review on Certiorari before the

Supreme Court docketed as G.R. No. 185619 challenging the 28 August
2008 decision of the Court of Appeals. On 11 February 2009, the
Supreme Court issued a resolution denying the petition for failure to
sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed judgment to
warrant the exercise by the Court of discretionary appellate
jurisdiction. Acting on SILVERIO JR.'s motion for reconsideration, the
Supreme Court on 11 February 2011, denied the motion with finality.
An entry of judgment was made on 29 March 2011.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 On 25 April 2011 SILVERIO SR. filed before the intestate court, an
urgent motion to be reinstated as administrator of the estate. Acting on
the motion, the intestate court issued the now challenged Order dated
16 June 2011, the pertinent portion of the Order reads:
xxx xxx xxx
"WHEREFORE, upon posting of a bond in the sum of TEN
MILLION PESOS, the same to be approved by this Court, Mr.
Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. is hereby ordered reinstated as the
Administrator to the estate of the late Beatriz Silverio and to
immediately take his oath as such, and exercise his duties and
functions as are incumbent under the law upon the said position.
caTIDE

xxx xxx xxx."

xxx xxx xxx
CA-G.R. SP No. 121173
xxx xxx xxx
On 15 March 2011, heirs SILVERIO JR., EDMUNDO and LIGAYA
represented by her legal guardian moved for the disqualification and/or
inhibition of JUDGE GUANLAO, JR. based on the following grounds: (1)
Absence of the written consent of all parties in interest allowing JUDGE
GUANLAO, JR. to continue hearing the case considering that he
appeared once as counsel in the intestate proceedings; (2) JUDGE
GUANLAO, JR. has shown bias and partiality in favor of SILVERIO SR. by
allowing the latter to pursue several motions and even issued a TRO in
violation of the rules against forum shopping; (3) Heir LIGAYA's Petition
for Support and Release of Funds for Medical Support has not been
resolved; and (4) It is in the best interest of all the heirs that the
proceedings be presided and decided by the cold neutrality of an
impartial judge.
On 23 March 2011, JUDGE GUANLAO, JR. issued an order denying
the Motion for Disqualification and/or Inhibition. The movants filed a
motion for reconsideration but the same was denied in an order dated
14 June 2011. Hence, the instant petition.
xxx xxx xxx
CA-G.R. SP NO. 122024
xxx xxx xxx
The intestate court in its Omnibus Order dated 31 October 2006,
ordered among others, the sale of certain properties belonging to the
estate. The portion of the order which is pertinent to the present
petition reads:
"WHEREFORE, above premises considered, this Court for
the foregoing reasons resolves to grant the following:

(1) . . .
(2) . . .

(3) Allowing the sale of the properties located at (1) No. 82

Cambridge Circle, Forbes Park, Makati City, covered by T.C.T. No.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 137155 issued by Register of Deeds of Makati City; (2) No. 3
Intsia Road, Forbes Park, Makati City covered by T.C.T. No.
4137154 issued by the Register of Deeds of Makati City; and (3)
No. 19 Taurus St., Bel-Air Subd. Makati City covered by TCT No.
137156 issued by the Register of Deeds of Makati City to partially
settle the intestate estate of the late Beatriz S. Silverio, and
authorizing the Administrator to undertake the proper procedure
or transferring the titles involved to the name of the estate; and
(4) To apply the proceeds of the sale mentioned in Number
3 above to the payment of taxes, interests, penalties and other
charges, if any, and to distribute the residue among the heirs
Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr., Ricardo S. Silverio, Jr., Ligaya S. Silverio
represented by Legal Guardian Nestor S. Dela Merced II,
Edmundo S. Silverio and Nelia S. Silverio-Dee in accordance with
the law on intestacy.
SO ORDERED."

By virtue of the aforesaid Order, SILVERIO, JR. on 16 October

2007 executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of CITRINE HOLDINGS,
Inc. ("CITRINE") over the property located at No. 3 Intsia Road, Forbes
Park, Makati City. CITRINE became the registered owner thereof on 06
September 2010 as evidenced by TCT No. 006-201000063. CSTHca

A Deed of Absolute Sale was likewise executed in favor of Monica

P. Ocampo (notarized on September 16, 2010) for the lot located at
No. 82 Cambridge Circle, Forbes Park, Makati City. On 23 December
2010, TCT No. 006-2011000050 was issued to Monica P. Ocampo. The
latter subsequently sold said property to ZEE2 Resources, Inc. (ZEE2)
and TCT No. 006-2011000190 was issued on 11 February 2011 under
its name.
In the interim, or on 12 December 2006 SILVERIO-DEE filed a
petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R.
SP No. 97196 with prayer for injunctive relief. As prayed for, the Court
of Appeals issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on 5 February
2007. On 4 July 2007, the Court issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction
conditioned upon the posting of the bond in the amount of two million
pesos (Php2,000,000.00). SILVERIO-DEE posted the required bond on
February 5, 2007 but in an order dated 3 January 2008, the Court ruled
that the bond posted by SILVERIO-DEE failed to comply with A .M. No.
04-7-02-SC. The Court, however, did not reverse the ruling granting the
injunction but instead ordered SILVERIO-DEE to comply with A.M. No.
04-7-02-SC. The Court also increased the bond from two million to ten
million. On 29 February 2008, the Court issued a Resolution approving
the ten million bond and issued the Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
Eventually, on 28 August 2008 the Court of Appeals (Seventh Division)
issued a decision reinstating SILVERIO SR. as administrator and
declaring the Writ of Preliminary Injunction permanent in regard to the
appointment of administrator.
On 04 February 2011 SILVERIO SR. filed an Urgent Application for
the Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Prohibitory
Injunction (With Motion for the Issuance of Subpoena Ad Testificandum
and Subpoena Duces Tecum ) praying among others, that a TRO be
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 issued restraining and/or preventing SILVERIO, JR., MONICA OCAMPO,
CITRINE HOLDINGS, INC. and their successors-in-interest from
committing any act that would affect the titles to the three properties.
On 14 February 2011, SILVERIO SR. filed an Urgent Omnibus
Motion (a) To Declare as Null and Void the Deed of Absolute Sale dated
16 September 2010; (b) To cancel the Transfer Certificate of Title No.
006-2011000050; and (c) To reinstate the Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 2236121 in the name of Ricardo C. Silverio Sr. and the Intestate
Estate of the late Beatriz S. Silverio.
On 28 February 2011 the Intestate Court issued an Order
granting a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining SILVERIO JR., their
agent or anybody acting in their behalf from committing any act that
would affect the titles to the properties and enjoining the Register of
Deeds of Makati City from accepting, admitting, approving, registering,
annotating or in any way giving due course to whatever deeds,
instruments or any other documents involving voluntary or involuntary
dealings which may have the effect of transferring, conveying,
encumbering, ceding, waiving, alienating, or disposing in favor of any
individual or any entity of the subject properties. Subpoena ad
testificandum and duces tecum was also issued by the intestate court
requiring SILVERIO, JR., MONICA OCAMPO and ALEXANDRA GARCIA of
CITRINE to testify and bring with them any books and documents under
their control to shed light on the circumstances surrounding the
transaction involving the properties in question.
On 9 March 2011, SILVERIO Sr. filed a Supplement to the Urgent
Omnibus Motion dated 14 February 2011. On 18 August 2011, the
intestate court rendered the now assailed Order the decretal portion of
the Order is quoted hereunder:
"WHEREFORE, this Court hereby orders that:

1. The Deed of Absolute Sale dated 16 September 2010 as VOID;

2. The Transfer Certificate of Title No. 006-2011000050 in the
name of defendant MONICA OCAMPO or any of her
successors-in-interest including all derivative titles, as
NULL AND VOID; TcEAIH

3. The Transfer Certificate of Title TCT No. 006-2011000190 in

the name of ZEE2 RESOURCES, INC. or any of its
successors-in-interest including all derivative titles, as
NULL AND VOID;

4. (T)he Register of Deeds of Makati City to CANCEL Transfer

Certificate of Title No. 006-2011000050, Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 006-2011000190 and all of its
derivative titles; and
5. Reinstating the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2236121 in the
name of RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR. AND THE INTESTATE
ESTATE OF THE LATE BEATRIZ SILVERIO, and

AS TO THE INTSIA PROPERTY:

1. The Register of Deeds of Makati City to CANCEL Transfer
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Certificate of Title No. 006-2010000063, in the name of
CITRINE HOLDINGS, INC. and all of its derivative titles; and
2. The reinstatement of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 223612 in
the name of RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR. and the INTESTATE
ESTATE OF THE LATE BEATRIZ SILVERIO.
SO ORDERED."
xxx xxx xxx 3
The consolidated petitions for certiorari filed by respondent Ricardo S.
Silverio, Jr. ("Silverio, Jr.") before the CA questioned the following issuances
of the intestate court: CA-G.R. SP No. 121172 — Order dated June 16, 2011
reinstating Silverio, Sr. as Administrator; CA-G.R. SP No. 121173 — (1) Order
dated March 23, 2011 granting Silverio, Sr.'s application for preliminary
injunction enjoining Silverio, Jr. or anyone acting on their behalf from
committing any act that would affect the titles to the subject properties and
enjoining the Register of Deeds of Makati City from accepting, admitting,
approving, registering, annotating or in any way giving due course to
whatever deeds, instruments or any other documents involving the
Cambridge and Intsia properties, (2) Order dated March 23, 2011 which
denied Silverio, Jr.'s motion or disqualification and/or inhibition of Judge
Guanlao, Jr., and (3) Order dated June 14, 2011 denying the motion for
reconsideration of the March 23, 2011 Order (granting application for
preliminary injunction); and in CA-G.R. SP No. 122024 — Order dated August
18, 2011 declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale, TCT and all derivative titles
over the Cambridge and Intsia properties as null and void.
On March 8, 2013, the CA rendered its Decision, the fallo of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the Court
hereby disposes and orders the following:
1. The petition in CA G.R. SP No. 121172 is DENIED for lack of
merit. Accordingly, the 16 June 2011 Order of the Regional Trial Court
of Makati City, Branch 57 reinstating MR. RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR. as
Administrator is AFFIRMED.
2. The petition in CA G.R. S.P. No. 121173 is partly DENIED for
lack of merit insofar as it questions the 23 March 2011 Order denying
RICARDO SILVERIO, JR's Motion for Disqualification and/or Inhibition of
Judge Honorio E. Guanlao, Jr. The petition is partly GRANTED in that
the Preliminary Injunction issued by the Regional Trial Court of Makati
City, Branch 57 is hereby declared NULL and VOID for being issued
with grave abuse of discretion. AEIcTD

3. The petition in CA G.R.-S.P. No. 122024 is GRANTED.

Accordingly, the 18 August 2011 Order declaring the Deed of Absolute
Sale, Transfer Certificate of Title and all derivative titles over the
Cambridge and Intsia Property null and void is hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED. 4

Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. (petitioner) filed a Motion for Partial

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Reconsideration 5 "insofar as its ruling in CA-G.R. SP No. 122024" praying
that the August 18, 2011 Order of the intestate court be affirmed. By
Resolution dated July 4, 2013, the CA denied his motion for partial
reconsideration.
Hence, this petition contending that the CA committed a reversible
error in upholding the validity of the Intsia and Cambridge properties upon
the ground that the intestate court cannot annul the sales as it has a limited
jurisdiction only and which does not include resolving issues of ownership. It
is asserted that the CA should not have stopped there and looked into the
nature of the properties sold, which formed part of the conjugal partnership
of Ricardo Silverio, Sr. and Beatriz S. Silverio.
Petitioner seeks the reinstatement of the order of the intestate court
annulling the sales of the Cambridge and Intsia properties. In the alternative,
should the said sales be upheld, petitioner prays that this Court (1) declare
the sales to be valid only to the extent of 50% net remainder share of the
late Beatriz less the corresponding shares therefrom of petitioner and the
other legal compulsory heirs, and (2) order respondent Silverio, Jr. to account
for the proceeds of sales for distribution of the residue among the
legal/compulsory heirs.
In their Comment, respondents Silverio, Jr., Monica Ocampo and Citrine
Holdings, Inc. argued that the intestate court should not have ruled on the
validity of the sale of the subject properties to third parties after it itself had
authorized their disposal in partial settlement of the estate, especially so
when separate actions assailing the new titles issued to said third parties
were already instituted by petitioner.
As to the issue of alleged lack of prior consent of petitioner to the
aforesaid sales as the surviving spouses with a 50% conjugal share in the
subject properties, respondents point out that such is belied by the October
31, 2006 Order of the intestate court, which clearly showed that counsels of
all the heirs were present at the hearing of June 16, 2006 and no objection
was made by them to the sale of the properties and the partial settlement of
the Estate of Beatriz S. Silverio, together with the transfer of titles of these
properties in the name of the Estate as prayed for in petitioner's
Manifestation and Motion dated April 19, 2006. Petitioner had not challenged
or appealed the said order authorizing the sale of the subject properties.
Thus, it is too late in the day for petitioner to raise this factual issue before
this Court, not to mention that it cannot be ventilated in the present appeal
by certiorari as this Court is not a trier of facts.
Respondent ZEE2 Resources Corporation filed its Comment contending
that the intestate court improperly nullified the titles despite the fact that
the present registered owners, who are indispensable parties, were not
impleaded. Indeed, a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked and may
be cancelled only in a direct proceeding brought for the purpose.
Respondent points out that petitioner himself recognized that a direct action
is required to annul a Torrens title as he initially instituted two civil
complaints before the RTC of Makati City seeking to annul, among others,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the TCT's issued to respondent Ocampo for the Cambridge property. After
failing to secure restraining orders in these two civil cases, petitioner filed in
the intestate court his Urgent Omnibus Motion dated February 14, 2011 to
annul the said titles, including that of ZEE2. In any case, respondent
maintains that it is a buyer of good faith and for value, of which the intestate
court never made a determination nor did the aforesaid Urgent Omnibus
Motion and Supplement to the Omnibus Motion dated March 4, 2011 contain
allegations indicating that respondent ZEE2 was not a buyer in good faith
and for value.
According to respondent ZEE2, petitioner's act of filing a separate
complaint with application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and
preliminary injunction on January 31, 2011 in another court (Civil Case Nos.
11-084 of the RTC of Makati City, Branch 143) constitutes willful and
deliberate forum shopping as the former also prayed similar primary reliefs
and setting up the alleged nullity of the subject deeds of absolute sale as
those raised in the Urgent Omnibus Motion and Supplement to the Urgent
Omnibus Motion filed in the intestate court. EIAScH

At the outset, we emphasize that the probate court having jurisdiction

over properties under administration has the authority not only to approve
any disposition or conveyance, but also to annul an unauthorized sale by the
prospective heirs or administrator. Thus we held in Lee v. Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, Branch 85: 6
Juliana Ortañez and Jose Ortañez sold specific properties of the
estate, without court approval. It is well-settled that court approval is
necessary for the validity of any disposition of the decedent's estate. In
the early case of Godoy vs. Orellano , we laid down the rule that the
sale of the property of the estate by an administrator without the order
of the probate court is void and passes no title to the purchaser. And in
the case of Dillena vs. Court of Appeals, we ruled that:
xxx xxx xxx
It being settled that property under administration needs
the approval of the probate court before it can be disposed of,
any unauthorized disposition does not bind the estate and is null
and void. As early as 1921 in the case of Godoy vs. Orellano (42
Phil. 347), We laid down the rule that a sale by an administrator
of property of the deceased, which is not authorized by the
probate court is null and void and title does not pass to the
purchaser.
There is hardly any doubt that the probate court can
declare null and void the disposition of the property under
administration, made by private respondent, the same having
been effected without authority from said court. It is the
probate court that has the power to authorize and/or
approve the sale (Sections 4 and 7, Rule 89), hence, a
fortiori, it is said court that can declare it null and void
for as long as the proceedings had not been closed or
terminated. To uphold petitioner's contention that the probate
court cannot annul the unauthorized sale, would render
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 meaningless the power pertaining to the said court. (Bonga vs.
Soler, 2 SCRA 755). (italics ours)
Our jurisprudence is therefore clear that (1) any disposition of
estate property by an administrator or prospective heir pending final
adjudication requires court approval and (2) any unauthorized
disposition of estate property can be annulled by the probate court,
there being no need for a separate action to annul the unauthorized
disposition. (Emphasis supplied.)
In this case, the sale of the subject properties was executed by
respondent Silverio, Jr. with prior approval of the intestate court under its
Omnibus Order dated October 31, 2006. Subsequently, however, the sale
was annulled by the said court on motion by petitioner.
In reversing the intestate court's order annulling the sale of the subject
properties, the CA noted that said ruling is anchored on the fact that the
deeds of sale were executed at the time when the TRO and writ of
preliminary injunction issued in CA-G.R. SP No. 97196 was still in effect. It
then concluded that the eventual decision in the latter case making the writ
of preliminary injunction permanent only with respect to the appointment of
petitioner as administrator and not to the grant of authority to sell mooted
the issue of whether the sale was executed at the time when the TRO and
writ of preliminary injunction were in effect. cHDAIS

The CA's ruling on this issue is hereunder quoted:

The more crucial question that needs to be addressed is:
Whether the authority to sell the properties in question granted under
the October 31, 2006 Omnibus Order, was nullified by the decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 97196. A look at the dispositive
portion of the decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 97196 would lead us to
reasonably conclude that the grant of authority to sell is still good and
valid. The fallo of the decision reads:
"WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The portions of the
Omnibus Order upholding the grant of letters of administration to
and the taking of an oath of administration by Ricardo Silverio,
Jr., as well as the removal of Ricardo Silverio, Sr. as administrator
to the Estate of Beatriz Silverio, are declared NULL and VOID. The
writ of preliminary injunction earlier issued is made permanent in
regard to the said portions. Respondent RTC is ORDERED to
reinstate Ricardo Silverio, Sr. as administrator of the Estate of
Beatriz Silverio. Costs against the Private Respondents.
SO ORDERED."
The October 31, 2006 Omnibus Order of the testate [sic]
court in so far as it authorizes the sale of the three properties
in question was not declared by the Court of Appeals, Seventh
Division as null and void. It is axiomatic that it is the dispositive
portion of the decision that finally invests rights upon the parties, sets
conditions for the exercise of those rights, and imposes the
corresponding duties or obligations.
From all the foregoing, We declare that it was grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the intestate court when it ordered the sale of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the Cambridge Property and Intsia Property as NULL and VOID citing as
justification the decision of the Court of Appeals, Seventh Division in
CA-G.R. SP No. 97196. To reiterate, the injunction order which was
made permanent by the Court of Appeals (Seventh Division)
was declared to be limited only to the portion of the Omnibus
Order that upheld the grant of letters of administration by
SILVERIO, JR. and the removal of SILVERIO, SR. as
administrator and nothing else.
Anent the preliminary injunction issued by the intestate court in
its Order dated 23 March 2011 and challenged by SILVERIO JR. in CA-
G.R. SP No. 121173, we find that it was issued with grave abuse of
discretion as it was directed against acts which were already [fait]
accompli. The preliminary injunction sought to: (1) restrain SILVERIO
JR., their agents, or anybody acting in their behalf or any person from
committing any act that would affect the titles to the subject properties
belonging to the Intestate Estate of the late Beatriz Silverio and (2)
enjoining the Register of Deeds of Makati City from accepting,
admitting, approving, registering, annotating or in any giving due
course to whatever deeds, instruments or any other documents
involving voluntary or involuntary dealings which may have the effect
of transferring, conveying, encumbering, ceding, waiving, alienating or
disposing in favor of any individual or any entity the above-enumerated
properties belonging to the Intestate Estate of the late Beatriz Silverio.
However, the records show that when the preliminary injunction
was issued on 23 March 2011 new titles over the disputed
properties were already issued to CITRINE HOLDINGS, INC. and
ZEE2 RESOURCES, INC. 7 (Emphasis supplied.)
We affirm the CA.
It bears to stress that the October 31, 2006 Omnibus Order was issued
by the intestate court acting upon pending motions filed by petitioner and
respondent Silverio, Jr., father and son, respectively, who are the central
figures in the now decade-old controversy over the Intestate Estate of the
late Beatriz S. Silverio. The intestate court flip-flopped in appointing as
administrator of the estate petitioner and respondent Silverio, Jr., their
personal conflicts becoming more evident to the intestate court as the
proceedings suffered delays. At the hearing of the urgent motion filed by
Edmundo Silverio to sell the subject properties and partially settle the estate,
the much awaited opportunity came when the heirs represented by their
respective counsels interposed no objection to the same. SIDEaA

While it is true that petitioner was eventually reinstated as

Administrator pursuant to the August 28, 2008 decision in CA-G.R. SP No.
97196 (petition for certiorari filed by Nelia Silverio-Dee), we agree with the
CA that the permanent injunction issued under the said decision, as explicitly
stated in its fallo, pertained only to the portions of the October 31, 2006
Omnibus Order upholding the grant of letters of administration to and taking
of an oath of administration by respondent Silverio, Jr., as otherwise the CA
would have expressly set aside as well the directive in the same Omnibus
Order allowing the sale of the subject properties. Moreover, the CA Decision
attained finality only on February 11, 2011 when this Court denied with
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 finality respondent Silverio, Jr.'s motion for reconsideration of the February
11, 2009 Resolution denying his petition for review (G.R. No. 185619).
The CA therefore did not err in reversing the August 18, 2011 Order of
the intestate court annulling the sale of the subject properties grounded
solely on the injunction issued in CA-G.R. SP No. 97196. Respondents
Ocampo, Citrine and ZEE2 should not be prejudiced by the flip-flopping
appointment of Administrator by the intestate court, having relied in good
faith that the sale was authorized and with prior approval of the intestate
court under its Omnibus Order dated October 31, 2006 which remained valid
and subsisting insofar as it allowed the aforesaid sale.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 8,
2013 and Resolution dated July 4, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
Nos. 121173 and 122024 are AFFIRMED.
With costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, * Bersamin and Mendoza, ** JJ., concur.

Footnotes

* Designated additional member per Raffle dated August 11, 2014.

** Designated additional member per Special Order No. 1738 dated July 31, 2014.

1. Rollo , pp. 20-50. Penned by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba with

Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Marlene Gonzales-Sison concurring.
2. Id. at 52-53.

3. Id. at 22-42.
4. Id. at 49-50.

5. Id. at 54-65.

6. 467 Phil. 997, 1016-1017 (2004).

7. Rollo , pp. 47-49.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com