SUCCESSION CASE

RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR., vs. RICARDO S. SILVERIO, JR., CITRINE HOLDINGS, INC., MONICA P.
OCAMPO and ZEE2 RESOURCES, INC.
G.R. Nos. 208828-29 August 13, 2014
FACTS:
The late Beatriz S. Silverio died without leaving a will, 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 for the settlement of her estate was filed by Silverio, Sr. 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 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. Thereafter, an active exchange of pleadings to remove and appoint a new
administrator ensued between Silverio, Sr. and Silverio, Jr.
The intestate court flip-flopped in appointing as administrator of the estate petitioner and respondent
Silverio, Jr. In an Order in 2005, Silverio, Sr. was removed as administrator and in his stead, SILVERIO,
JR. was designated as the new administrator. 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 Makati City. CITRINE became the registered owner thereof. A Deed of Absolute Sale
was likewise executed in favor of Monica P. Ocampo, subsequently sold to ZEE2 Resources, Inc. (ZEE2).
Silverio, Sr.filed an Urgent Application for the Issuance of TRO restraining and/or preventing Silverio, Jr.,
Monica, CITRINE, and their successors-in-interest from committing any act that would affect the titles to
the three properties.
An 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.
On 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. 0062011000050; and (c) To reinstate the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2236121 in the name of Ricardo C.
SilverioSr. and the Intestate Estate of the late Beatriz S. Silverio. The intestate court rendered the now
assailed Orders granting the preliminary injunction against Silverio, Jr., and declaring the Deed of
Absolute Sale, TCT and all derivative titles over the Cambridge and Intsia properties as null and void.
The Court of Appeals rendered decision declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale, Transfer Certificate of Title
and all derivative titles over the Cambridge and Intsia Property valid. Silverio, Sr. contends that CA
committed a reversible error in upholding the validity of the Intsia and Cambridge properties on 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not the sale of the Intestate Estate by the administrator valid.
RULING:
An administrator can validly sell the intestate estate under his administration ONLY by leave of court.
While it is true that Silverio Sr. was eventually reinstated as Administrator pursuant to the 2008 decision,
the permanent injunction issued by the CA, as explicitly stated in its fallo, pertained only to the portions of
the 2006 Omnibus Order upholding the grant of letters of administration to and taking of an oath of
administration by 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.

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. SO ORDERED.

SUCCESSION; When can Intestate Estate be validly sold by the administrator.

QUESTION:
The late Beatriz S. Silverio died without leaving a will, 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 for the settlement of her estate was filed by Silverio, Sr. 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 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. Thereafter, an active exchange of pleadings to remove and appoint a
new administrator ensued between Silverio, Sr. and Silverio, Jr. The intestate court flip-flopped in
appointing as administrator of the estate petitioner and respondent Silverio, Jr.
Silverio, Sr. filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion to declare the Deed of Absolute Sale, Transfer
Certificate of Title and all derivative titles over the Cambridge and Intsia Property null and void. The
intestate court rendered the now assailed Orders granting the preliminary injunction against Silverio, Jr.,
and declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale, TCT and all derivative titles over the Cambridge and Intsia
properties as null and void. The Court of Appeals rendered decision declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale,
Transfer Certificate of Title and all derivative titles over the Cambridge and Intsia Property valid. CA
explicitly stated in its fallo that it pertained only to the portions of the Omnibus Order upholding the grant
of letters of administration to and taking of an oath of administration by respondent Silverio, Jr., but did not
expressly set aside as well the directive in the same Omnibus Order allowing the sale of the subject
properties. Was the sale of the Intestate Estate of the late Beatriz S. Silverio valid?
ANSWER:
Yes, the sale of the Intestate Estate of the late Beatriz S. Silverio was valid. An administrator can
validly sell the intestate estate under his administration ONLY by leave of court. While it is true that
Silverio Sr. was eventually reinstated as Administrator pursuant to the 2008 decision, the permanent
injunction issued by the CA, as explicitly stated in its fallo, pertained only to the portions of the 2006
Omnibus Order upholding the grant of letters of administration to and taking of an oath of administration
by 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.
The 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 in 2006 which remained
valid and subsisting insofar as it allowed the aforesaid sale.