ArticuLaw Primo
LSPU-LAW STAR CLASS
G.R. No. 77660, 1988
Dillena v. Court of Appeals
Facts:
Spouses Dolores Sebastian and Rufino Carreon died in 1974, leaving an adoptive daughter Aurora Carreon
In the same year, Fausta Carreon Herrera instituted special proceedings in the then CFI of Quezon City for the settlement of the estate of the deceased. Fausta was appointed as special administrator by the court.
In 1975, Aurora Carreon executed an extra-judicial settlement of the estate of the deceased spouses, adjudicating to herself all the real property of the said spouses. Later she was appointed as administrator of the estate.
Meanwhile, Aurora sold properties of the estate, without prior approval from the court, consisting of three fishponds located in Hagonoy, Bulacan to Eladio Dillena, herein petitioner.
The petitioner, on the other hand, sold the said properties to Luisa Rodriguez and Starlight Industries Co., Inc.
The court having learned such sale transaction and the transfer of the same, required the vendees to appear, and explain why the deed should not be cancelled due to the absence of the courts approval to such transactions. Eladio and Luisa failed to appear.
The court on September 1984 declared the sale of administrator to Eladio and Luisa null and void for having been made without court’s authority and approval.
Eladio filed a petition to annul its order, arguing it has no power to annul the sale.
The probate court denied his petition and ordered the petitioners to return the physical possession of the fishpond. They filed a motion for reconsideration was denied. Such decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the probate court has no power to annul the sale entered by him and the administratrix.
Issue:
Whether or not the contention of the petitioner is correct
Held:
The evidence shows that when the questioned properties were sold without court approval by private respondent to petitioner, the same were under administration. The subject properties therefore are under the jurisdiction of the probate court which according to our settled jurisprudence has the authority to approve any disposition regarding properties under administration.
An administratrix of an estate already subject of a special proceeding pending before the probate court cannot enjoy blanket authority to dispose of real properties as she pleases. More emphatic is the declaration We made in Estate of Olave vs. Reyes (123 SCRA 767) wherein We stated that when the estate of the deceased person is already the subject of a testate or intestate proceeding, the administrator cannot enter into any transaction involving it without prior approval of the probate court.
To uphold petitioner's contention that the probate court cannot annul the unauthorized sale, would render meaningless the power pertaining to the said court. Sales of properties under administration which do not comply with the requisites under sections 4 and 7 of Rule 89 are null and void (Bonaga vs. Soler, 2 SCRA 755).