Chua v. Court of Appeals, 344 SCRA 136 Facts: Fernando B.

Morada was the original owner of the disputed lot. After his death, the probate court appointed Aida, his wife, as administratrix of her husbands estate. The probate court allowed the sale of the lot to private respondent Sofia Sanchez for one million pesos. Intervenor Sagrario Moreles filed a motion for reconsideration opposing the sale alleging that the sale was prejudicial to the minor heirs of Fernando. He claimed that the land could sold for P1.5 million pesos. Atty. Federico Cabilao, another intervenor who represented undisclosed clients interested to purchase the land. During the conference, Atty. Cabilao revealed that he offered P2 million pesos for the lot. Judge Abarquez approved the proposal of Atty. Cabilao to purchase the property and at the same time issued an order revoking his approval of the sale and declared void and without effect the deed of absolute sale he had earlier approved with respondent Sofia Sanchez. Sanchez filed a motion for reconsideration and made a counter-offer but her motion was denied by the court. After more than six months had elapsed since her receipt of the order complained of and after more the five months after said order was certified as final and executor, Sanchez filed a petition for certiorari under rule 65 before the Court of Appeals alleging that respondent Judges Abarquez and Alio-Hormachelos abused their discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when they issued the questioned orders. The appellate court granted the petition and the Deed of Absolute Sale in her favor was affirmed and reinstated, hence, this petition. Issue: Whether or not petition for certiorari filed with the CA was already time-barred therefore should not be taken cognizance by the Court. Held: Petition denied. A special civil action for certiorari challenging the RTC with grave abuse of discretion may be instituted either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. Both have original concurrent jurisdiction.19 Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. While ordinarily, certiorari is unavailing where the appeal period has lapsed, there are exceptions. Among them are (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; (b) when the broader interest of justice so requires;21 (c) when the writs issued are null and void; (d) or when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.

The questioned orders of the probate court nullifying the sale to Sanchez after it approved the sale and after its order of approval had become final and executory amount to oppressive exercise of judicial authority, a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Further orders stemming therefrom are also null and without effect.