MAGDALITA Y. TANG, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ARTURO A. ROMERO, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
The Estate of Spouses Teodoro owned a parcel of land, a portion of which was expropriated. The remaining lot, Lot 214-A-2, was subdivided into two smaller lots. The estate administrator, needing funds to settle estate debts, obtained probate court authority to sell or mortgage the property. To facilitate a sale, he applied for a fencing permit with the Caloocan City Engineer. Petitioners, owners of adjoining properties, opposed the permit, claiming the lots were designated as street lots, and fencing would block their access to public roads. The City Legal Officer agreed and recommended denial, which the City Engineer upheld.
The estate administrator then petitioned the probate court to compel the City Engineer to issue the fencing permit. The probate court granted the petition, ruling that the current certificates of title for the subdivided lots did not describe them as street lots and that any prior “street lot” notation in older, cancelled titles was stale and without legal effect. Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, challenging the probate court’s order. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, ruling that appeal, not certiorari, was the proper remedy. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that appeal was the proper remedy to question the probate court’s order.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The Court held that while petitioners were correct that the Court of Appeals erred in finding appeal to be the proper remedy, they were mistaken in believing certiorari was available. An order from a probate court granting authority to perform an act in the administration of an estate, such as the order to issue a fencing permit, is interlocutory. Interlocutory orders are not appealable; they may only be challenged via certiorari if the probate court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the probate court. Its order was based on its examination of the current titles, which contained no “street lot” designation, and its legal conclusion that prior notations on cancelled titles were ineffective. This was a valid exercise of judicial discretion. Certiorari is not a remedy for errors of judgment but for jurisdictional errors. Since the probate court acted within its jurisdiction, certiorari was not an available remedy. The Court also noted that the City Engineer, the official who initially denied the permit, had subsequently filed a comment supporting its issuance, further undermining petitioners’ position.
