8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

1/25

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 108947 September 29, 1997

ROLANDO SANCE!, "LOR#DA M#ERL$ SANCE!, AL"REDO T. SANCE! %&' M$RNA T.

SANCE!,petitioners,vs.TE ONORA(LE COURT O" APPEALS, ROSAL#A S. LUGOD, ARTURO S. LUGOD, E)EL$NLUGOD*RAN#SES %&' RO(ERTO S. LUGOD, respondents.

PANGAN#(AN, J.:

Is a petition for certiorari, in lieu of appeal, the proper reed! to correct orders of a probate courtnullif!in" certain deeds of sale and, thus, effectivel! passin" upon title to the properties sub#ect ofsuch deeds$ Is a coproise a"reeent partitionin" inherited properties valid even %ithout theapproval of the trial court hearin" the intestate estate of the deceased o%ner$

The Case

These &uestions are ans%ered b! this 'ourt as it resolves the petition for revie% on certioraribeforeus assailin" the Noveber (), *++( Decision1of the 'ourt of ppeals 2in '-.R. SP No. (/01*%hich annulled the decision+of the trial court 4and %hich declared the coproise a"reeent

aon" the parties valid and bindin" even %ithout the said trial court2s approval. The dispositiveportion of the assailed Decision reads3

4H5R56OR5, for the reasons hereinabove set forth and discussed, the instantpetition is RNT5D and the challen"ed decision as %ell as the subse&uent ordersof the respondent court are NN7885D and S5T SID5. The teporar! restrainin"order issued b! this 'ourt on October *9, *++( is ade P5RMN5NT. Thecoproise a"reeent dated October ):, *+1+ as odified b! the eorandu ofa"reeent of pril *), *+0: is D5'8R5D valid and bindin" upon herein parties.

nd Special Proceedin"s No. 99-M and *:(( are deeed '8OS5D andT5RMINT5D.

SO ORD5R5D.

The Antecedent Facts

The facts are narrated b! the 'ourt of ppeals as follo%s3

;Herein private respondent< Rosalia S. 8u"od is the onl! child of spouses =uan '.Sanche> and Maria Villafranca %hile ;herein private respondents< rturo S. 8u"od,

8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

2/25

5vel!n 8. Ranises and Roberto S. 8u"od are the le"itiate children of ;herein privaterespondent< Rosalia.

;Herein petitioners< Rolando, 6lorida Mierl!, lfredo and M!rna, all surnaedSanche>, are the ille"itiate children of =uan '. Sanche>.

6ollo%in" the death of her other, Maria Villafranca, on Septeber (+, *+10, ;hereinprivate respondent< Rosalia filed on =anuar! ((, *+1/, thru counsel, a petition forletters of adinistration over the estate of her other and the estate of her father,=uan '. Sanche>, %ho %as at the tie in state of senilit! ?nne@ ABA, PetitionC.

On Septeber ):, *+1/, ;herein private respondent< Rosalia, as adinistratri@ of theintestate estate of her other, subitted an inventor! and appraisal of the real andpersonal estate of her late other ?nne@ A'A, PetitionC.

Before the adinistration proceedin"s Special in Proceedin"s No. 99-M couldforall! be terinated and closed, =uan '. Sanche>, ;herein private respondent, %hich petition %as opposed b! ?herein private respondentC Rosalia.-

On October ):, *+1+, ho%ever, ;herein private respondent< Rosalia and ;hereinpetitioners< assisted b! their respective counsels e@ecuted a coproise a"reeent?nne@ ADA, PetitionC %herein the! a"reed to divide the properties enueratedtherein of the late =uan '. Sanche>.

On Noveber ), *+1+, petitioner Rosalia %as appointed b! ;the trial court

8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

3/25

and an accountin" of the fruits thereof, %hich propted ;herein private respondent de 8u"od and =uan '.Sanche>

(. That the entire intestate estate of =uan '. Sanche> under SpecialProceedin"s No. *:(( consists of all his capital properties, one-half?*G(C fro the con#u"al partnership of "ains and one-half ?*G(C of theintestate estate of Maria Villafranca under Special Proceedin"s No.99-M

). That one-half ?*G(C of the entire intestate estate of =uan '.Sanche> shall be inherited b! his onl! le"itiate dau"hter, Rosalia V.Sanche> de 8u"od %hile the other one-half ?*G(C shall be inheritedand be divided e&uall! b!, bet%een and aon" the si@ ?1C ille"itiatechildren, nael!3 Patricia lburo, Maria Rauso Sanche>, RolandoPedro T. Sanche>, 6lorida Mierl! T. Sanche>, lfredo T. Sanche>and M!rna T. Sanche>

9. That all the Deed ?sicC of bsolute Sales e@ecuted b! =uan '.Sanche> and Maria Villafranca in favor of Rosalia Sanche> 8u"od,

rturo S. 8u"od, 5vel!n S. 8u"od and Roberto S. 8u"od on =ul! (1,*+1) and =une (1, *+10 are all declared siulated and fictitious and

ust be sub#ect to collation and partition aon" all heirs

E. That %ithin thirt! ?):C da!s fro finalit! of this decision, RosaliaSanche> 8u"od is hereb! ordered to prepare a pro#ect of partition ofthe intestate estate of =uan '. Sanche> under Special Proceedin"sNo. *:(( and distribute and deliver to all heirs their correspondin"shares. If she fails to do so %ithin the said thirt! ?):C da!s, then aBoard of 'oissioners is hereb! constituted, %ho are all entitled tohonorariu and per dies and other necessar! e@penses char"eable

8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

4/25

8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

5/25

;Herein private respondent< Rosalia then filed a otion for reconsideration of saidOnibus Order ?nne@ ATA, PetitionC. Said ;herein private respondent< %as allo%ed tofile a eorandu in support of her otion ?nne@ AVA, PetitionC.

On =une (1, *++*, ;the trial court< issued and Order den!in" petitioner Rosalia2s otionfor reconsideration ?nne@ A4A, PetitionC.7

Thereafter, private respondents elevated the case to the 'ourt of ppeals via a petitionfor certiorariand contended3

I

The ;trial court< has no authorit! to disturb the coproise a"reeent.

II

The ;trial court< has arbitraril! faulted ;herein private respondent< Rosalia S. 8u"odfor alle"ed failure to render an accountin" %hich %as ipossible.

III

The ;trial court< acted %ithout #urisdiction in dero"ation of the constitutional ri"hts of;herein private respondents< rturo S. 8u"od, 5vel!n 8. Ranises and Roberto S.8u"od %hen ;the trial court< decided to annul the deed of sale bet%een the said;herein private respondents< and =uan '. Sanche> %ithout affordin" the their da! incourt.

IV

;The trial court #ud"e< defied %ithout rh!e or reason %ell-established and

entrenched #urisprudence %hen he deterined facts sans an! evidence thereon.

V

;The trial court< "rossl! isinterpreted ;herein private respondent< Rosalia S. 8u"od2sri"ht to appeal.8

6or clarit!2s sae, this 'ourt hereb! reproduces verbati the coproise a"reeent9of the parties3

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

'OM5 NO4, the parties in the above-entitled case, otivated b! their utual desire to

preserve and aintain haronious relations bet%een and aon" theselves, for utualvaluable considerations and in the spirit of "ood %ill and fair pla!, and, for the purpose ofthis 'oproise "reeent, a"ree to the follo%in"3

*. That the deceased =uan '. Sanche> %ho died intestate on October (*, *+1/ %asle"all! arried to Maria Villafranca de Sanche>, %ho predeceased her on Septeber(+, *+10, out of %hose %edloc Rosalia Sanche> 8u"od, Oppositor herein, %as born,thus ain" her the sole and onl! survivin" le"itiate heir of her deceased parents

8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

6/25

(. That the said deceased =uan '. Sanche>, left ille"itiate children, Intervenors-Oppositors and Petitioners, respectivel!, herein nael!

?*C Patricio lburo, born out of %edloc on March *0,*+(1 at 'ebu 'it!, Philippines, to 5ilia lburo

?(C Maria Raoso Sanche>, born out of %edloc onMa! +, *+)0 at in"oo", Misais Oriental, no%,in"oo" 'it!, to lberta Raoso

?)C ?aC Rolando Pedro Sanche>, born on Ma! *+,*+90,

?bC 6lorida Mierl! Sanche>, born on 6ebruar! *1,*+9+,

?cC lfredo Sanche>, born on =ul! (*, *+E:, and

?dC M!rna Sanche>, born on =une *1, *+E(, all bornout of %edloc to 8aureta Tapus in in"oo" 'it!,Philippines.

). That the deceased =uan '. Sanche> left the follo%in" properties, to %it3

I. S5PRT5 'PIT8 O6 =7N '. SN'H5J

NT7R5, D5S'RIPTION ND R5 SS5SS5D V875

?*C "ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@. Decl. No. :19E/, 'ad. 8ot No. *:9* '-(,located at Murallon, in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! 8ot Nos. *:)), *:)E,

*:)1, *:)0, *:)+, *:9:, *:9( K *:9) South b! 8ot No. *:/:, *://, *:/0 K *:/95ast b! 8ot Nos. *:/+, *:1* K ()*+ 4est b! 8ot Nos. +E9, *:)/, *:E0 K *:E1,containin" an area of ON5 H7NDR5D 5IHTL THR55 THO7SND SIH7NDR5D S5V5NTL T4O ?*/), 10(C s&. s. ore or less.

P(*,1+:.::

II. 'ON=78 PROP5RTL O6 =7N '. SN'H5J ND MRI VI886RN'D5 SN'H5J

?*C "ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. :1990, 'ad. 8ot No. (09E, '-0located at "a!-a!an, in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! 8ot Nos. (099,

(09(, (09/ South b! 8ot No. (0)+ 5ast b! 8ot No. (091 4est b! 8ot No. (09*,containin" an area of 6O7RT55N THO7SND S5V5N H7NDR5D ?*9,0::C s&. s.ore or less.

P*,+::.::

?(C "ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. :199+, 'ad, 8ot No. )(0* '-0located at Pan!an"an, 8anao, in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! 8ot No.)(0: South b! 8ot Nos. (+:: K )91( 5ast b! Pan!an"an River K 6. 8uanao and

8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

7/25

Part of 8ot )(0( and 4est b! Saa! 'ree, containin" an area of ON5 H7NDR5D6O7R THO7SND SI H7NDR5D ?*:9,1::C s&. s. ore or less.

P**,E/:.::

?)C "ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. :199+, 'ad. 8ot No. ()*+, 'ase (,

located at Murallon, in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! 8ot No. *:1* Southb! Hinopolan 'ree 5ast b! 8ot No. *:99 and 4est b! 8ot No. *:9*, containin" anarea of THR55 THO7SND T4O H7NDR5D T45NTL 6IV5 ?),((EC s&. s. oreor less.

?9C "ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. :19E(, 'ad. 8ot No. )(0(, '-0 Part9 located at Pan!an"an, 8unao, in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! 8ot Nos.)(0: K )(0) 5ast b! Pan!an"an River South b! Pan!an"an River and 4est b!8ot Nos. )(0: K )(0*, containin" an area of 6I6TL 6IV5 THO7SND SIH7NDR5D ?EE,1::C s&. s. ore or less, bein" claied b! Daian uerubin.

P(,)0:.::

?EC "ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. :19E), 'ad. 8ot No. )(0: 'ase 0,located at Suno", 8unao, in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! Saa! 'ree K8ot )(10 South b! 8ot Nos. )(0* K )(0( 5ast b! 8ot Nos. )(1+ K )(0) and 4estb! Saa! 'ree, containin" an area of 6O7R H7NDR5D 5IHT THR55THO7SND SI H7NDR5D ?9/),1::C s&. s. ore or less.

P1*,1/:.::

?1C "ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. :19E0, 'ad. 8ot No. )(0), '-0 Part( located at Pan!an"an, 8unao, in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! 8ot No.)(1+ South b! 8ot No. )(0( 5ast b! Pan!an"an River and 4est b! 8ot No. )(0:,

containin" an area of THIRTL 6O7R THO7SND THR55 H7NDR5D ?)9,)::C s&.s. ore or less, bein" claied b! Mi"uel Tuto.

P),//:.::

?0C "ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. *(:::, 'ad. 8ot No. (/:1, 'ase 0located at "a!a!an, in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! "a!a!an RiverSouth b! Victoriano Barbac 5ast b! Isabelo Raoso and 4est b! Restituto Baol,containin" an area of SI THO7SND SI H7NDR5D S5V5NTL SI ?1,101C s&.s. ore or less.

P)/:.::

?/C "ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. *(+(9, 'ad. 8ot No. *(:1 '-*located at 'ahulo"an, in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the N4., b! 8ot No. *(:+ S4.,b! 8ot No. *(:0 5astb! National Hi"h%a! and 4est b! 8ot No. *(:0 containin" anarea of 6O7R THO7SND 6IV5 H7NDR5D THIRT55N ?9,E*)C s&. s. ore orless.

P09:.::

8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

8/25

8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

9/25

*. 6ift! ?E:C shares of stocRural Ban of in"oo", Inc.at P*::.:: per share PE,:::.::

(. 6our ?9C shares of Preferred Stoc%ith San Mi"uel 'orporation 9::.::

9. That, the parties hereto have a"reed to divide the above-enuerated properties inthe follo%in" anner, to %it3

?aC To Patricio lburo, Maria Raoso Sanche>,Roland Pedro T. Sanche>, 6lorida Mierl! Sanche>,

lfredo T. Sanche> and M!rna T. Sanche>, in e&ualpro-indiviso shares, considerin" not onl! theirrespective areas but also the iproveents e@istin"thereon, to %it3

"ricultural 8and. 'overed b! Ta@ Decl. No. :19E),

'ad. 8ot No. )(0: 'ase 0, located at Suno", 8unao,in"oo" 'it! and bounded on the North b! Saa!'ree K 8ot )(10 South b! 8ot Nos. )(0* and )(0(5ast b! 8ot Nos. )(1+ K )(0) and 4est b! Saa!'ree, containin" an area of 6O7R H7NDR5D5IHTL THR55 THO7SND SI H7NDR5D?9/),1::C s&. s. and assessed in the su ofP1*,1/:.::.

?bC To Rosalia Sanche> 8u"od all the rest of theproperties, both real and personal, enuerated above%ith the e@ception of the follo%in"3

?*C T%o Preferred Shares of Stoc inthe San Mi"uel 'orporation, indicatedin San Mi"uel 'orporation Stoc'ertificate No. ):(*0, %hich t%oshares she is cedin" in favor ofPatricio lburo

?(C The house and lot desi"nated as8ot No. E, Bloc ( to"ether %ith theiproveents thereon and identifiedas parcel No. II-*(, lot covered b! Ta@Decl. No. *E0+/ identified as Parcel

No. II-*) in the above enuerated,and 'ad. 8ot No. E*E0-'-0 to"ether%ith the iproveents thereon, %hichis identified as parcel No. II-*9 of theabove-enueration of properties,%hich said Rosalia S. 8u"od islie%ise cedin" and renouncin" infavor of Rolando Pedro, 6lorida Mierl!,

8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

10/25

lfredo and M!rna, all surnaedSanche>, in e&ual pro-indiviso shares

E. That Rolando Pedro, 6lorida Mierl!, lfredo and M!rna, all surnaed Sanche>hereb! acno%led"e to have received #ointl! and severall! in for of advances afterOctober (*, *+1/ the a""re"ate su of 5IHT THO7SND 6IV5 H7NDR5D

THIRTL-THR55 P5SOS ?P/,E)).+9C and NIN5TL-6O7R '5NTVOS

1. That the parties hereto lie%ise acno%led"e and reco"ni>e in the indebtedness ofthe deceased =uan . Sanche> and his deceased %ife Maria Villafranca Sanche> tothe 8u"od 5nterprises, Inc., in the su of P9),:19.++

0. That the parties hereto shall be responsible for the pa!ent of the estate andinheritance ta@es proportionate to the value of their respective shares as a! bedeterined b! the Bureau of Internal Revenue and shall lie%ise be responsible forthe e@penses of surve! and se"re"ation of their respective shares

/. That Patricio lburo, Maria Raoso Sanche>, Roland Pedro Sanche>, 6lorida

Mierl! Sanche>, lfredo Sanche> and M!rna Sanche> hereb! %aive, relin&uish andrenounce, #ointl! and individuall!, in a anner that is absolute and irrevocable, alltheir ri"hts and interests, share and participation %hich the! have or i"ht have in allthe properties, both real and personal, no%n or unno%n andGor %hich a! not belisted herein, or in e@cess of the areas listed or entioned herein, andGor %hich i"hthave been, at one tie or another, o%ned b!, re"istered or placed in the nae ofeither of the spouses =uan '. Sanche> or Maria Villafranca de Sanche> or both, and%hich either one or both i"ht have sold, ceded, transferred, or donated to an!person or persons or entit! and %hich parties hereto do hereb! confir and ratif!to"ether %ith all the iproveents thereon, as %ell as all the produce and proceedsthereof, and particularl! of the properties, real and personal listed herein, as %ell asdeandable obli"ations due to the deceased spouses =uan '. Sanche>, before andafter the death of the aforeentioned spouses =uan '. Sanche> and Maria

Villafranca de Sanche>, in favor of oppositor Rosalia S. 8u"od

+. That the e@penses of this liti"ation includin" attorne!2s fees shall be bornerespectivel! b! the parties hereto

*:. That 8aureta Tapus for herself and "uardian ad-lite of her inor children,nael!3 6lorida Mierl!, lfredo, and M!rna, all surnaed Sanche>, hereb! declarethat she has no ri"ht, interest, share and participation %hatsoever in the estate left b!=uan '. Sanche> andGor Maria Villafranca de Sanche>, or both, and that she lie%ise%aives, renounces, and relin&uishes %hatever ri"id, share, participation or interesttherein %hich she has or i"ht have in favor of Rosalia S. 8u"od

**. That, the parties hereto utuall! %aive and renounce in favor of each other an!%hatever clais or actions, arisin" fro, connected %ith, and as a result of SpecialProceedin"s Nos. 99-M and *:(( of the 'ourt of 6irst Instance of Misais Oriental,Rosalia S. 8u"od, %arrantin" that the parcel of land ceded to the other parties hereincontains 9/ hectares and )1 ares.

*(. That, Rosalia S. 8u"od shall assue as she hereb! assues the pa!ent to8u"od 5nterprises, Inc., of the su of PE*,E+/.+) representin" the indebtedness ofthe estate of =uan '. Sanche> and Maria Villafranca de Sanche> and the advances

8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

11/25

ade to Rolando Pedro, Mierl!, lfredo, and M!na all surnaed Sanche>,entioned in para"raphs E hereto a"ree to have letters of adinistration issued infavor of Rosalia S. 8u"od %ithout an! bond.

That Rosalia S. 8u"od lie%ise a"rees to deliver possession and en#o!ent of theparcel of land herein ceded to petitioners and intervenors iediatel! after the

si"nin" of this a"reeent and that the latter also utuall! a"ree aon" theselvesto have the said lot subdivided and partitioned iediatel! in accordance %ith theproportion of one si@th ?*G1C part for ever! petitioner and intervenor and that in theeantie that the partition and subdivision is not !et effected, the adinistrations ofsaid parcel of land shall be vested #ointl! %ith 8aureta Tapos, "uardian ad lite ofpetitioners and Maria Raoso, one of the intervenors %ho shall see to it that eachpetitioner and intervenor is "iven one si@th ?*G1C of the net proceeds of all a"riculturalharvest ade thereon.

4H5R56OR5, it is ost respectfull! pra!ed that the fore"oin" coproisea"reeent be approved.

Medina, Misais Oriental, October ):, *+1+.

?S"d.C ?S"d.CPTRI'IO 8B7RO ROS8I S. 87ODIntervenor-Oppositor Oppositor

?S"d.CMRI RMOSO SN'H5J SSIST5D BL3Intervenor-Oppositor

?S"d.CSSIST5D BL3 PB8O S. R5L5S

R-*:*-Navarro Bld".?S"d.C Don . Vele> St.R5LN8DO 8. 65RNND5J 'a"a!an de Oro 'it!in"oon" 'it!

?S"d.C ?S"d.CRO8NDO P5DRO T. SN'H5J 86R5DO T. SN'H5JPetitioner Petitioner

?S"d.C ?S"d.C68ORID MI5R8L T. SN'H5J MLRN T. SN'H5JPetitioner Petitioner

?S"d.C87R5T TMP7S6or herself and as uardian

d-8ite of the inors6lorida Mierl!, lfredo, andM!rna, all surnaed Sanche>

SSIST5D BL3

8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

12/25

T5O5N5S V585J, =R.'ounsel for Petitioners'a"a!an de Oro 'it!

The 'ler of 'ourt'ourt of 6irst Instance

Branch III, Medina, Mis. Or.

reetin"s3

Please set the fore"oin" coproise a"reeent for the approval of the Honorable'ourt toda!, Oct. ):, *+1+.

?S"d.C ?S"d.C ?S"d.CPB8O S. R5L5S T5O5N5S V585J, =R. R5LN8DO 8. 65RNND5J

The Meorandu of "reeent dated pril *), *+0:, %hich the parties entered into %ith theassistance of their counsel, aended the above coproise. ?It %ill be reproduced later in our

discussion of the second issue raised b! the petitioners.C

The 'ourt of ppeals, in a Resolution 10dated Septeber 9, *++(, initiall! disissed privaterespondents2 petition. ctin", ho%ever, on a otion for reconsideration and a suppleental otionfor reconsideration dated Septeber *9, *++( and Septeber (E, *++(, respectivel!, 11Respondent'ourt thereafter reinstated private respondents2 petition in a resolution 12dated October *9, *++(.

In due course, the 'ourt of ppeals, as earlier stated, rendered its assailed Decision "rantin" thepetition, settin" aside the trial court2s decision and declarin" the odified coproise a"reeentvalid and bindin".

Hence, this appeal to this 'ourt under Rule 9E of the Rules of 'ourt.

The Issues

In this appeal, petitioners invite the 'ourt2s attention to the follo%in" issues3

I

The respondent court "rossl! erred in "rantin" the petition for certiorariunder Rule1E considerin" that the special civil action of certioraria! not be availed of as asubstitute for an appeal and that, in an! event, the "rounds invoed in the petitionare erel! alle"ed errors of #ud"ent %hich can no lon"er be done in vie% of the factthat the decision of the lo%er court had lon" becoe final and e@ecutor!.

II

Prescindin" fro the fore"oin", the respondent court erred in annullin" the decisionof the lo%er court for the reason that a coproise a"reeent or partition as thecourt construed the sae to be, e@ecuted b! the parties on October ):, *+1+ %asvoid and unenforceable the sae not havin" been approved b! the intestate courtand that the sae havin" been seasonabl! repudiated b! petitioners on the "roundof fraud.

8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

13/25

8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

14/25

the orders %ere also issued either in e@cess of or %ithout #urisdiction ?"uilar vs. Tan, 8-()1::, =un):, *+0:, 'f. Bautista, et al. vs. Sariento, et al., 8-9E*)0, Sept. ()*+/EC ?)C for certain specialconsideration, as public %elfare or public polic! ?See =ose vs. Julueta, et al. *1E+/, Ma! )*, *+1*and the cases cited thereinC ?9C %here in criinal actions, the court re#ects rebuttal evidence for theprosecution as, in case of ac&uittal, there could be no reed! ?People vs. balos, 8:(+:)+, Nov.(/, *+1/C ?EC %here the order is a patent nullit! ?Marcelo vs. De u>an, et al., 8-(+:00, =une (+,

*+/(C and ?1C %here the decision in the certiorari case %ill avoid future liti"ations ?St. PeterMeorial Par, Inc. vs. 'apos, et al., 8-)/(/:, Mar. (*, *+0EC.A 1-5ven in a case %here thereed! of appeal %as lost, the 'ourt has issued the %rit of certiorari %here the lo%er court patentl!acted in e@cess of or outside its #urisdiction, 17as in the present case.

petition for certiorari under Rule 1E of the Rules of 'ourt is appropriate and allo%able %hen thefollo%in" re&uisites concur3 ?*C the %rit is directed a"ainst a tribunal, board or officer e@ercisin"

#udicial or &uasi-#udicial functions ?(C such tribunal, board or officer has acted %ithout or in e@cess of#urisdiction, or %ith "rave abuse of discretion aountin" to lac or e@cess of #urisdiction and ?)Cthere is no appeal or an! plain, speed! and ade&uate reed! in the ordinar! course of la%. 18fter athorou"h revie% of the case at bar, %e are convinced that all these re&uireents %ere et.

s a probate court, the trial court %as e@ercisin" #udicial functions %hen it issued its assailedresolution. The said court had #urisdiction to act in the intestate proceedin"s involved in this case%ith the caveat that, due to its liited #urisdiction, it could resolve &uestions of title onl!provisionall!. 19It is hornboo doctrine that Ain a special proceedin" for the probate of a %ill, the&uestion of o%nership is an e@traneous atter %hich the probate court cannot resolve %ith finalit!.This pronounceent no doubt applies %ith e&ual force to an intestate proceedin" as in the case atbar.A 20In the instant case, the trial court rendered a decision declarin" as siulated and fictitious allthe deeds of absolute sale %hich, on =ul! (1, *+1) and =une (1, *+10, =uan '. Sanche> and MariaVillafranca e@ecuted in favor of their dau"hter, Rosalia Sanche> 8u"od and "randchildren, nael!,

rturo S. 8u"od, 5vel!n S. 8u"od and Roberto S. 8u"od. The trial court ruled further that theproperties covered b! the said sales ust be sub#ect to collation. 'itin" rticle *9:+ ?(C of the 'ivil'ode, the lo%er court nullified said deeds of sale anddeter%ined &ith "inalit! the o&nershi o" the

roerties subect thereo" . In doin" so, it clearl! overstepped its #urisdiction as a probate court.

=urisprudence teaches3

;< probate court or one in char"e of proceedin"s %hether testate or intestate cannotad#udicate or deterine title to properties claied to be a part of the estate and %hich areclaied to belon" to outside parties. ll that the said court could do as re"ards saidproperties is to deterine %hether the! should or should not be included in the inventor!or list of properties to be adinistered b! the adinistrator. If there is not dispute, %elland "ood, but if there is, then the parties, the adinistrator, and the opposin" partieshave to resort to an ordinar! action for a final deterination of the conflictin" clais oftitle because the probate court cannot do so.21

6urtherore, the trial court coitted "rave abuse of discretion %hen it rendered its decision indisre"ard of the parties2 coproise a"reeent. 22Such disre"ard, on the "round that the

coproise a"reeent A%as nor approved b! the court,A 2+is tantaount to Aan evasion of positivedut! or to a virtual refusal to perfor the dut! en#oined or to act in conteplation and %ithin thebounds of la%. A 24

The fore"oin" issues clearl! involve not onl! the correctness of the trial court2s decision but also thelatter2s #urisdiction. The! encopass plain errors of #urisdiction and "rave abuse of discretion, noterel! errors of #ud"ent. 2Since the trial court e@ceeded its #urisdiction, a petition for certiorariiscertainl! a proper reed!. Indeed, it is %ell-settled that A?aCn act done b! a probate court in e@cessof its #urisdiction a! be corrected b!certiorari.A 2-

8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

15/25

'onsistent %ith the fore"oin", the follo%in" dis&uisition b! respondent appellate court is apt3

s a "eneral proposition, appeal is the proper reed! of petitioner Rosalia here underRule *:+ of the Revised Rules of 'ourt. But the availabilit! of the ordinar! course ofappeal does not constitute sufficient "round to ;prevent< a part! fro ain" use of thee@traordinar! reed! of certiorari%here appeal is not an ade&uate reed! or e&uall!

beneficial, speed! and sufficient ?5chau> vs. 'ourt of ppeals, *++ S'R )/*C. Here,considerin" that the respondent court has disre"arded the coproise a"reeent %hichhas lon" been e@ecuted as earl! as October, *+1+ and declared null and void the deedsof sale %ith finalit!, %hich, as a probate court, it has no #urisdiction to do, 4e deeordinar! appeal is inade&uate. 'onsiderin" further the ;trial court2s< "rantin" of ;hereinpetitioners2C otion for e@ecution of the assailed decision, 27;herein private respondent

ssisted b!3

?S"d.CT5O5N5S V585J, =r.'ounsel for Petitioners

?S"d.CROS8I S. 87OD

dinistratri@

ssisted b!3

?S"d.C

PB8O S. R5L5S'ounsel for dinistratri@?S"d.CMRI RBOSO SN'H5JIntervenor 2

Not onl! did the parties no%in"l! enter into a valid coproise a"reeent the! even aended it%hen the! reali>ed soe errors in the ori"inal. Such correction ephasi>es the voluntariness of saiddeed.

It is also si"nificant that all the parties, includin" the then inors, had alread! consu%%ated andavailed the%selves o" the bene"its o" their co%ro%ise. +This 'ourt has consistentl! ruled that Aapart! to a coproise cannot as for a rescission after it has en#o!ed its benefits.A 4B! their acts,the parties are ineludibl! estopped fro &uestionin" the validit! of their coproise a"reeent.Bolsterin" this conclusion is the fact that petitioners &uestioned the coproise onl! nine !earsafterits e@ecution, %hen the! filed %ith the trial court their Motion to Defer pproval of 'oproise

"reeent, dated October (1, *+0+. In hindsi"ht, it is not at all farfetched that petitioners filed saidotion for the sole reason that the! a! have felt shortchan"ed in their coproise a"reeent orpartition %ith private respondents, %hich in their vie% %as un%ise and unfair. 4hile %e a!s!pathi>e %ith this rueful sentient of petitioners, %e can onl! stress that this alone is not sufficientto nullif! or disre"ard the le"al effects of said coproise %hich, b! its ver! nature as a perfectedcontract, is bindin" on the parties. Moreover, courts have no #urisdiction to loo into the %isdo of acoproise or to render a decision different therefro. -It is a %ell-entrenched doctrine that Athela% does not relieve a part! fro the effects of an un%ise, foolish, or disastrous contract, enteredinto %ith all the re&uired foralities and %ith full a%areness of %hat he %as doin"A 7and Aa

coproise entered into and carried out in "ood faith %ill not be discarded even if there %as aistae of la% or fact, ?Mc'arth! vs. Barber Steaship 8ines, 9E Phil. 9//C because courts have nopo%er to relieve parties fro obli"ations voluntaril! assued, sipl! because their contracts turnedout to be disastrous deals or un%ise investents.A 8(olenti non "it inuria.

'orollaril!, the petitioners contend that the 'ourt of ppeals "ravel! abused its discretion in deein"Special Proceedin"s Nos. 99-M and *:(( A'8OS5D and T5RMINT5D,A ar"uin" that there %as as!et no order of distribution of the estate pursuant to Rule +: of the Rules of 'ourt. The! add thatthe! had not received their full share thereto. 94e disa"ree. 7nder Section *, Rule +: of the Rules

8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

20/25

of 'ourt, an order for the distribution of the estate a! be ade %hen the Adebts, funeral char"es,and e@penses of adinistration, the allo%ance to the %ido%, and inheritance ta@, if an!,A had beenpaid. This order for the distribution of the estate2s residue ust contain the naes and shares of thepersons entitled thereto. perusal of the %hole record, particularl! the trial court2sconclusion, -0reveals that all the fore"oin" re&uireents alread! concurred in this case. Thepa!ent of the indebtedness of the estates of =uan '. Sanche> and Maria Villafranca in the aount

of PE*,E+/.+) %as shouldered b! Private Respondent Rosalia, %ho also absorbed or char"eda"ainst her share the advances of Rolando T. 8u"od in the su of P/,E)).+9, in copliance %ith

rticle *:1* of the 'ivil 'ode on collation. -16urtherore, the coproise of the parties, %hich is thela% bet%een the, alread! contains the naes and shares of the heirs to the residual estate, %hichshares had also been delivered. On this point, %e a"ree %ith the follo%in" discussion of the 'ourt of

ppeals3

But %hat the ?trial courtC obviousl! overlooed in its appreciation of the facts of this caseare the uncontroverted facts that ?herein petitionersC have been in possession ando%nership of their respective distributive shares as earl! as October ):, *+1+ and the!have received other properties in addition to their distributive shares in consideration ofthe coproise a"reeent %hich the! no% assail. Proofs thereof are Ta@ DeclarationsNo. (:+/9, (:+/E, (:+/1, (:+/0, (:+//, (:+/+ and (:++: ?nne@es ABA to AHA,

Suppleental Repl!C in the respective naes of ?herein petitionersC, all for the !ear *+0(.?Herein petitionersC also retained a house and lot, a residential lot and a parcel ofa"ricultural land ?nne@es AIA, A=A and AFA, Ibid.C all of %hich %ere not considered in thecoproise a"reeent bet%een the parties. Moreover, in the coproisea"reeenter se+it is undoubtedl! stated therein that cash advances in the a""re"atesu of P/,E)).+9 %ere received b! ?herein petitionersC after October (*, *+1/?'oproise "reeent, par. EC -2

ll the fore"oin" sho% clearl! that the probate court had essentiall! finished said intestateproceedin"s %hich, conse&uentl!, should be deeed closed and terinated. In vie% of the abovediscussion, the 'ourt sees no reversible error on the part of the 'ourt of ppeals.

Third Issue3Fraud and Collation

Petitioners fault Respondent 'ourt for not orderin" Private Respondent Rosalia T. 8u"od to deliverto the the deficienc! as alle"edl! provided under the coproise a"reeent. The! further contendthat said court erred in not directin" the provisional inclusion of the alle"ed deficienc! in theinventor! for purposes of collatin" the properties sub#ect of the &uestioned deeds of sale. -+4e seeno such error. In the trial court, there %as onl! one hearin" conducted, and it %as held onl! for thereception of the evidence of Rosalia S. 8u"od to install her as adinistratri@ of the estate of MariaVillafranca. There %as no other evidence, %hether testionial or other%ise, Areceived, forall!offered to, and subse&uentl! aditted b! the probate court belo%A nor %as there Aa trial on theerits of the parries2 conflictin" clais.A -4In fact, the petitioners Aoved for the deferent of thecoproise a"reeent on the basis of alle"ed fraudulent concealent of properties NOTbecause of an! deficienc! in the land conve!ed to the under the a"reeents.A -Hence, there is no

hard evidence on record to bac up petitioners2 clais.

In an! case, the trial court noted Private Respondent Rosalia2s %illin"ness to reiburse an!deficienc! actuall! proven to e@ist. It subse&uentl! ordered the "eodetic en"ineer %ho prepared thecertification and the setch of the lot in &uestion, and %ho could have provided evidence for thepetitioners, Ato brin" records of his relocation surve!.A --Ho%ever, eodetic 5n"ineer Idulsa did notcopl! %ith the court2s suboena duces tecu%and ad testi"icandu%. Neither did he furnish there&uired relocation surve!. -7No %onder, even after a thorou"h scrutin! of the records, this 'ourt

8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

21/25

cannot find an! evidence to support petitioners2 alle"ations of fraud a"ainst Private RespondentRosalia.

Siilarl!, petitioners2 alle"ations of fraud in the e@ecution of the &uestioned deeds of sale are bereftof substance, in vie% of the palpable absence of evidence to support the. The le"al presuption ofvalidit! of the &uestioned deeds of absolute sale, bein" dul! notari>ed public docuents, has not

been overcoe. -8On the other hand, fraud is not presued. It ust be proved b! clear andconvincin" evidence, and not b! ere con#ectures or speculations. 4e stress that these deeds ofsale did not involve "ratuitous transfers of future inheritance these %ere contracts of sale perfectedb! the decedents durin" their lifetie. -9Hence, the properties conve!ed thereb! are notcollationable because, essentiall!, collation andated under rticle *:1* of the 'ivil 'odeconteplates properties conve!ed inter vivosb! the decedent to an heir b! %a! of donation or other"ratuitous title.

In an! event, these alle"ed errors and deficiencies re"ardin" the deliver! of shares provided in thecoproise, concealent of properties and fraud in the deeds of sale are factual in nature %hich, asa rule, are not revie%able b! this 'ourt in petitions under Rule 9E. 70Petitioners have failed toconvince us that this case constitutes an e@ception to such rule. ll in all, %e find that the 'ourt of

ppeals has sufficientl! addressed the issues raised b! the. Indeed, the! have not persuaded usthat said 'ourt coitted an! reversible error to %arrant a "rant of their petition.

4H5R56OR5, the petition is hereb! D5NI5D and the assailed Decision of the 'ourt of ppeals is66IRM5D.

SO ORD5R5D.

Narvasa+ C,-,+ Ro%ero+ Melo and Francisco+ --,+ concur,

"oot&ote

* Rollo, pp. 9/-1:.

( 6ourteenth Division, coposed of -. 8uis 8. Victor,onente, and --. 6idel P.Purisia and Oscar M. Herrera, actin" chairan.

) Rollo, pp. /E-**0.

9 Penned b! =ud"e Vivencio . alon.

E Decision of the 'ourt of ppeals, p. *) rollo, p. 1:.

1 T%o other ille"itiate children of =uan '. Sanche>, nael!, Patricio lburo and

Maria Raoso, intervened in the intestate proceedin"s. Ho%ever, the! are notparties in the present controvers! before the Supree 'ourt.

0 Decision of the 'ourt of ppeals, pp. *-1 rollo, pp. 9/-E).

/ Ibid., p. 1 rollo, p. E).

+ 'opied fro the trial court2s decision, pp. 0-*) rollo, pp. +*-+0 nne@ A=A,petition. See alsonne@ A(A, 'oent dated =ul! (, *++) rollo, pp. *E+-*10.

8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

22/25

*: Record of the 'ourt of ppeals, pp. *1*-*1).

** Ibid., pp. *1+-*+*.

*( Ibid., pp. (E:-(E(.

*) Petition, pp. *E-*1 rollo, pp. ()-(9. See alsoMeorandu for Petitioners, pp.*(-*9 rollo, pp. 999-991.

*9 Meorandu for Petitioners, p. *0 rollo, p. 99+.

*E Ibid., pp. *+-(: rollo, pp. 9E*-9E(.

*1 Reedial 8a% 'opendiu, Volue One, p. 0:/, ?*++0C.

*0 Philippine National Ban vs. 6lorendo, (:1 S'R E/(, E/+, 6ebruar! (1,*++(. See also Heirs of Ma!or Noencio alve> vs. 'ourt of ppeals, (EE S'R10(, 1/+, March (+, *++1.

*/ Section *, Rule 1E, Rules of 'ourt. See'ochin"!an, =r. vs. 'loribel, 01 S'R)1*, )/E, pril ((, *+00.

*+ =iene> vs. Interediate ppellate 'ourt, */9 S'R )10, )0*-)0(, pril *0,*++:.

(: Ibid., p. )0(.

(* Orte"a vs. 'ourt of ppeals, *E) S'R +1, *:(-*:), u"ust *9, *+/0, perParas, -. See alsoMorales vs. '6I of 'avite, Br. V, *91 S'R )0), )/*-)/),Deceber (+, *+/1.

(( See=ulieta V. 5s"uerra vs. 'ourt of ppeals and Sureste Properties, Inc. .R.No. **+)*:, p. (*, 6ebruar! ), *++0 and Tac-an Dano vs. 'ourt of ppeals, *)0S'R /:), /*), =ul! (+, *+/E.

() Decision of the Re"ional Trial 'ourt, p. *9 rollo, p. +/.

(9 Paredes vs. 'ivil Service 'oission, *+( S'R /9, +9, Deceber 9, *++:, perParas, -. citing'arson et al. vs. =ud"e Pantaosos, =r., */: S'R *E*, Deceber*E, *+/+, Intestate 5state of 'aren de 8una vs. Interediate ppelate 'ourt, *0:S'R (91, 6ebruar! *), *+/+, and People vs. Manuel, ** S'R 1*/, =ul! )*,*+19. See also'ochin"!an, =r. vs. 'loribel, sura, pp. )/0-)//.

(E See'ochin"!an, =r. vs. 'loribel, sura, p. )/1.

(1 Maninan" vs. 'ourt of ppeals, **9 S'R 90/, 9/E, =une *+, *+/(, perMelencio-Herrera, -.citing8laas vs. Moscoso, +E Phil. E++ ?*+E9C.

(0 SeeRe"ional Trial 'ourt2s Onibus Order Den!in" Second Motion forReconsideration and Den!in" Pra!er for Voluntar! Inhibition of 7ndersi"ned Trial

8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

23/25

=ud"e, Declarin" Decision Dated =une (1, *++* as 6inal and 5@ecutor!, p. 1 rollo,p.*().

(/ Decision of the 'ourt of ppeals, p. *) rollo, p. 1:.

(+ 8eonor vs. 'ourt of ppeals, (E1 S'R 1+, pril (, *++1, per Pan"aniban, -.

): Meorandu for the Petitioners, pp. ()-(/ rollo, pp. 9EE-91:.

)* SeeDoin"o vs. 'ourt of ppeals, (EE S'R */+, *++, March (:, *++1, perFapunan, -., and o vs. Interediate ppelate 'ourt, */) S'R /(, /1-/0, March*(, *++:, per 6ernan, C.-.

)( *E9 S'R ):+, )(:, Septeber (/, *+/0.

)) Decision of the Re"ional Trial 'ourt, p. *9 rollo, p. +/.

)9 Republic vs. Sandi"anba!an, *0) S'R 0(, /), Ma! 9, *+/+.

)E 8andiol Resources 'orporation vs. Tensuan, *1/ S'R E1+, E0+, Deceber (:,*+//.

)1 Ibid.

)0 Petitioners2 Meorandu, pp. (1-(0 rollo, pp. 9E/-9E+.

)/ Santia"o 5s&uivel, et al, vs. The 'ourt of ppeals, lfredo N. 6rias and Belen8ustre-6rias, .R. No. 8-//(E, p. E, pril (:, *+E1, +/ Phil. *::/, 7nrep., perBautista n"elo, -. See alsooe> vs. Mariano, et al, *0 '..R. *(+E, *(++,Deceber (), *+0(, per aviola =r., -.

)+ Meorandu of Petitioners in the Re"ional Trial 'ourt, p. + record of the 'ourtof ppeals, p. (:).

9: SeeRecord, pp. *+E to ((*.

9* Record, pp. )EE-)09.

9( Petitioners2 'oent in the 'ourt of ppeals, pp. 1-0 Record pp. (1E-(11.

9) Motion for Reconsideration, pp. *)-*9 Record, pp. )11-)10.

99 Manila Ba! 'lub 'orporation vs. 'ourt of ppeals, (9E S'R 0*E, 0(+, =ul! **,*++E, per 6rancisco, -.

9E Medida vs. 'ourt of ppeals, (:/ S'R //0, /+), Ma! /, *++(, perRe"alado, -. citingVencilao, et al. vs. Vano, et al., */( S'R 9+*, 6ebruar! (),*++:, and evero, et al vs. Interediate ppellate 'ourt, et al., */+ S'R (:*,

u"ust ):, *++:.

8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

24/25

8/13/2019 11. Sanchez vs. CA

25/25