G.R. No. 28770, January 21, 1928
DOROTEA DAIS, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAPIZ, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

In the intestate proceedings of Serapion Dais, the court-appointed administrator, Manuel Arnaldo, was authorized to sell estate properties to pay debts. He sold Lots Nos. 1132 and 1136 to Antonio Habana, which sale was approved by the court. The heirs (petitioners) objected and moved for reconsideration, but their motion was denied. Their subsequent appeal was also denied for being filed out of time.

Meanwhile, in Cadastral Case No. 18, Administrator Arnaldo filed an answer in the name of Serapion Dais’s heirs, claiming Lots Nos. 626, 1132, and 1136. Jose Altavas and Jose Morente also filed answers claiming the same lots. Upon motion of Altavas and Morente, and with the consent of Administrator Arnaldo, the respondent court ordered the answer filed by Arnaldo (on behalf of the heirs) to be stricken from the record. The heirs filed a motion for reconsideration, objecting to the striking out of their claim, but it was denied. They then gave notice of appeal and filed a bill of exceptions, which was disapproved by the court.

After the heirs’ answer was stricken out, the court proceeded to hear the claims of Altavas and Morente and rendered a judgment adjudicating the lots to them. The heirs then filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the heirs have the right to intervene in a cadastral proceeding to object to the striking out of an answer filed by the judicial administrator on their behalf, when the administrator consents to its dismissal.
2. Whether the respondent court exceeded its jurisdiction or gravely abused its discretion in ordering the answer stricken out over the heirs’ objection.

RULING

1. YES. The heirs have the right to intervene. Under Articles 657 and 661 of the Civil Code, the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death, and the heirs immediately succeed to all the rights and obligations of the decedent. The appointment of a judicial administrator for purposes of liquidation does not deprive the heirs of their ownership or their right to intervene to protect their interests in the estate’s property, especially when they believe the administrator’s acts are prejudicial. Section 714 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring the heirs’ consent for the sale of estate property, supports this right of intervention.

2. YES. The respondent court exceeded its jurisdiction and deprived the heirs of their constitutional right to due process. The answers in a cadastral case are in the nature of an action to recover title. By dismissing the heirs’ claim over their objection and based solely on the administrator’s consentand not on any legal ground for dismissalthe court effectively barred the heirs from being heard on the merits of their property rights. This constitutes a denial of their day in court. An erroneous exercise of interlocutory power that deprives a party of a constitutional right is an excess of jurisdiction correctible by certiorari.

Since the heirs’ appeals from the interlocutory orders were denied, certiorari is the proper remedy. The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The orders dated July 25, 1927 (striking out the answer), August 8, 1927 (denying reconsideration), and September 22, 1927 (disapproving the bill of exceptions), as well as the judgment dated September 29, 1927, were declared NULL AND VOID and SET ASIDE. The case was remanded for further proceedings.