Dillena v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Dolores Sebastian and Rufino Carreon died, leaving an adopted daughter, Aurora Carreon. Fausta Carreon Herrera was appointed Special Administratrix. Aurora Carreon later executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate, adjudicating all real properties to herself. She was subsequently appointed administratrix, and her appointment was formalized with letters of administration granted on July 1, 1980. On November 8, 1978, while administratrix, Aurora Carreon executed an extrajudicial adjudication of three fishpond properties. On November 13, 1978, she sold these fishponds to petitioner Eladio Dillena without the knowledge and approval of the probate court. Petitioner had been leasing these fishponds prior to the sale. Petitioner had also previously sold other estate properties to Luisa S. Rodriguez and Starlight Industrial Co., Inc. without court approval. Procedural History: The probate court, upon learning of the unauthorized transfers, ordered the vendees, including petitioner, to appear and explain why the sales and titles should not be cancelled. Only Starlight Industrial Co., Inc. appeared and its sale was approved. Petitioner and Luisa S. Rodriguez failed to appear or submit explanations. The probate court, on September 13, 1984, declared the transfers to petitioner and Luisa S. Rodriguez null and void for lack of court authority and approval. Petitioner was served a copy of this order on December 13, 1984. On July 25, 1985, petitioner filed a petition before the probate court questioning its power to annul the sale, alleging lack of jurisdiction and that he was not a party. The probate court denied this petition on October 28, 1985. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it on November 14, 1986. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on March 2, 1987. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision which upheld the probate court's orders annulling the sale of the fishponds.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner was deprived of property without due process of law. Whether the probate court, with its limited jurisdiction, can declare the sale of the fishponds null and void. Whether the nullification and revocation of the transfer certificates of title were validly ordered, considering the annotation of an attorney's lien.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of due process: The petitioner was afforded due process. The probate court issued an order dated September 22, 1981, requiring petitioner to appear and explain why the deed of sale should not be cancelled for having been executed without court authority. Despite receiving this order, petitioner failed to appear on the scheduled date. The court granted him an additional fifteen (15) days to submit his explanation, but he again failed to appear and ignored the order. One who is given a full opportunity to present evidence and fails to do so cannot claim denial of due process. Furthermore, petitioner later filed a petition before the probate court questioning its power to annul the sale, which was heard and denied, demonstrating he had an opportunity to be heard. On the jurisdiction of the probate court to annul the sale: The probate court has the authority to declare null and void the disposition of property under administration made without its authority. The fishponds in question were included in the inventory of estate properties and remained under administration even after the sale to petitioner. Settled jurisprudence holds that an administratrix cannot dispose of real properties of the estate without prior court approval. Any unauthorized disposition does not bind the estate and is null and void. The probate court, having the power to authorize and approve sales of properties under administration, also has the power to declare unauthorized sales null and void, provided the proceedings have not been closed or terminated. Upholding petitioner's contention would render the probate court's power meaningless. On the annotation of attorney's lien and the validity of the nullification: The issue regarding the annotation of an attorney's lien is settled. Applications for attorney's fees can be passed upon by the probate court in the same proceedings. More importantly, the order dated September 13, 1984, nullifying the deed of sale was received by the petitioner on December 17, 1984. Petitioner failed to appeal this order within the reglementary period. Instead, he filed a petition before the probate court seven months later, questioning the court's power to nullify the sale. Since the order of nullification had become final and executory due to petitioner's failure to appeal, the remedy of certiorari was no longer available. Certiorari cannot be used to substitute for a lost appeal.
Main Doctrine
A sale of property under administration executed by an administratrix without the prior authority and approval of the probate court is null and void. The probate court has the authority to declare such unauthorized sale null and void as long as the proceedings have not been closed or terminated. Failure to appeal an order within the reglementary period renders it final and executory, precluding the remedy of certiorari.