G.R. No. L-47736; April 18, 1941
COSME PROFETA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. JOSE GUTIERREZ DAVID as Judge of Court of First Instance of Cavite, THE SHERIFF OF CAVITE and EDUVIGES BONUS, respondents.

FACTS

1. Teodora Bocalan died in 1932, survived by her legitimate children: Bonifacio Profeta, Cosme Profeta, and Hermenegildo Profeta. Bonifacio’s children and Cosme Profeta are the petitioners.
2. In the intestate proceedings for Teodora Bocalan’s estate (Civil Case No. 2697), Hermenegildo Profeta was appointed general administrator. To pay estate debts and expenses, the Court of First Instance of Cavite granted a license to sell Lot No. 1878, part of the estate.
3. On December 16, 1935, Lot No. 1878 was sold to Deogracias Solis. The sale was confirmed by the court on December 17, 1935, and a transfer certificate of title was issued to Solis. The petitioners, who were represented in the proceedings, did not appeal the order granting the license to sell, the confirmation of the sale, or the approval of the administrator’s accounts.
4. Hermenegildo Profeta died on May 23, 1939, survived by his widow, respondent Eduviges Bonus. His estate included Lot No. 1879 and a right to the possession and enjoyment of Lot No. 1878, which he had agreed to repurchase from Deogracias Solis under a contract where title remained with Solis until full payment, but possession passed to Hermenegildo.
5. Eduviges Bonus was appointed judicial administratrix of Hermenegildo’s estate (Civil Case No. 3690). She filed a motion for possession of Lots Nos. 1878 and 1879, which was granted by the respondent court through orders dated August 27 and September 2, 1940.
6. The petitioners claim possession of the lots, alleging Cosme Profeta inherited them. The respondent claims Hermenegildo possessed the lots until his death and that the petitioners took possession by force and intimidation in June 1940.
7. The petitioners filed this original petition for certiorari with injunction to restrain the enforcement of the court’s orders.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of First Instance of Cavite acted without jurisdiction or abused its discretion in granting the license to sell Lot No. 1878 in the intestate estate of Teodora Bocalan (Case No. 2697) without proper notification and consent of the petitioners.
2. Whether the ownership and possession of Lot No. 1879, allegedly fraudulently acquired by Hermenegildo Profeta, can be determined in this certiorari proceeding or in the administration proceedings for Hermenegildo’s estate.

RULING

1. On the sale of Lot No. 1878: The petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy. An order granting a license to sell real estate in administration proceedings is in the nature of a judgment, and any defect or infirmity in such an order is curable by appeal. The petitioners neglected to appeal from the order granting the license to sell, the confirmation of the sale, and the approval of the administrator’s accounts. Having lost their remedy by appeal due to their own negligence, they cannot seek redress through a writ of certiorari.
2. On the ownership of Lot No. 1879: The petitioners’ contention that Hermenegildo Profeta fraudulently acquired Lot No. 1879 involves an inquiry into ownership that cannot be determined in this certiorari proceeding nor in the course of the administration proceedings for Hermenegildo’s estate. If the petitioners claim entitlement to ownership and possession of the lot, their claim should be submitted to the proper Court of First Instance exercising general jurisdiction in an ordinary action.
DISPOSITIVE: The petition for certiorari is dismissed and the preliminary injunction issued by this Court is dissolved. Costs against the petitioners.