Profeta v. David
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the possession of two lots, Nos. 1878 and 1879, which were part of the estate of Teodora Bocalan. Teodora Bocalan died in 1932, leaving three children: Bonifacio Profeta, Cosme Profeta, and Hermenegildo Profeta. Bonifacio's children and Cosme Profeta are the petitioners. Hermenegildo Profeta, who was appointed administrator of Teodora's estate, later died in 1939, leaving his widow, Eduviges Bonus, as the respondent. The petitioners claim possession of the lots based on an alleged inheritance from their father, Cosme Profeta, believing these lots were his share of Teodora's estate. The respondent claims her deceased husband, Hermenegildo Profeta, possessed and acquired these lots through legitimate means, and that the petitioners forcibly took possession of them. Procedural History: In the intestate proceedings for Teodora Bocalan's estate (Civil Case No. 2697), Hermenegildo Profeta, as administrator, obtained a license to sell Lot No. 1878, which was sold to Deogracias Solis in 1935. The sale was confirmed, and a transfer certificate of title was issued to Solis. The petitioners did not appeal the order granting the license to sell, the confirmation of the sale, or the approval of the administrator's accounts. Hermenegildo Profeta later died, and Eduviges Bonus initiated intestate proceedings for his estate (Civil Case No. 3690), being appointed administratrix. In June 1940, Bonus filed a motion in Civil Case No. 3690 seeking possession of Lots Nos. 1878 and 1879, which the respondent court granted through orders dated August 27 and September 2, 1940. The Petition: The petitioners filed an original petition for a writ of certiorari with injunction with the Supreme Court, seeking to restrain the respondent judge from enforcing the orders of August 27 and September 2, 1940. They contend that the Court of First Instance acted without jurisdiction and abused its discretion in granting the license to sell Lot No. 1878 without proper notification or consent from the petitioners. They also allege that Lot No. 1879 was fraudulently acquired by Hermenegildo Profeta, who omitted it from Teodora Bocalan's estate inventory. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioners lost their remedy by appeal due to negligence regarding Lot No. 1878, and that the ownership dispute over Lot No. 1879 should be resolved in a separate ordinary action.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance of Cavite acted without jurisdiction and abused its discretion in granting the license to sell Lot No. 1878 in the intestate estate of Teodora Bocalan without prior notification to and express written consent of the petitioners. Whether the ownership of Lot No. 1879, allegedly fraudulently acquired by the deceased Hermenegildo Profeta, can be determined in a petition for certiorari or in the administration proceedings of Hermenegildo's estate.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed, and the preliminary injunction granted by the Supreme Court is dissolved.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the license to sell Lot No. 1878: The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' contention that the Court of First Instance acted without jurisdiction and abused its discretion in granting the license to sell Lot No. 1878 is untenable. The Court noted that the petitioners were duly represented in all the proceedings concerning Teodora Bocalan's estate. Crucially, the petitioners neglected to appeal from the order granting the license to sell Lot No. 1878, nor from the confirmation of the sale, nor from the approval of the administrator's accounts. The Court emphasized that an order granting a license to sell real estate in administration proceedings is in the nature of a judgment upon the issues involved, and an appeal may be taken therefrom. Since the petitioners' remedy by appeal was lost due to their own negligence, they cannot now seek redress through a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Court reiterated that certiorari is a remedy for correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, not for correcting errors of law or fact that could have been corrected by appeal. The failure to avail of the remedy of appeal when it was available bars recourse to certiorari. On the issue of the ownership of Lot No. 1879: The Supreme Court stated that the petitioners' contention that Lot No. 1879 was fraudulently acquired by the deceased Hermenegildo Profeta involves an inquiry into ownership. Such an inquiry cannot be determined in the instant petition for a writ of certiorari, nor can it be definitively settled within the course of the administration proceedings for Hermenegildo Profeta's estate. The Court clarified that if the petitioners believe they are entitled to the ownership and possession of Lot No. 1879, their claim must be submitted to the proper Court of First Instance exercising general jurisdiction to try and determine ordinary actions. The Court cited several cases, including Franco v. O'Brien, De los Santos v. Jarra, Guzman v. Anog, and Santiago v. Court of First Instance, to support the principle that ownership disputes are to be resolved in ordinary civil actions, not in special proceedings like administration or certiorari.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari will not prosper if the remedy by appeal was available but was lost due to the petitioner's negligence. Issues of ownership that require inquiry beyond the scope of administration proceedings must be determined in an ordinary action.