G.R. No. L-28858 May 29, 1980
AURORA CAMARA VDA. DE ZUBIRI, petitioner, vs. HON. TEODULO C. TANDAYAG, detailed Judge, Court of First Instance of Lanao de Norte, Branch II, City of Iligan HON. HERNANDO PINEDA, District Judge, Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Branch II, City of Iligan and WENCESLAO (BEN) ZUBIRI, respondents.

FACTS

This is a petition for certiorari seeking to annul several orders from the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte. The orders directed the clerk of court to deliver to respondent Wenceslao (Ben) Zubiri the rentals deposited by tenants of properties forming part of the intestate estate of the deceased Jesus Zubiri. Petitioner Aurora Camara Vda. de Zubiri, the widow, sought to have these funds returned to the court’s custody pending the resolution of Civil Case No. IL-219, wherein she claimed a share in the same properties. The respondents argued the petition was moot, as the civil case had been terminated, and that the orders were proper since Wenceslao Zubiri had been declared the sole heir and owner of the properties in a prior special proceeding (Spec. Proc. No. IL-2), which had long been closed.
The record shows that after Jesus Zubiri’s death, Spec. Proc. No. IL-2 was instituted. After notice to the widow, the probate court appointed Wenceslao Zubiri as administrator and later declared him the sole heir, adjudicating the entire estate to him. Subsequently, Aurora filed Civil Case No. IL-219 to recover her alleged conjugal share. A judgment was initially rendered in her favor based on a stipulation, but this was later set aside on appeal, and the case was ordered to be tried on the merits. During the pendency of this civil case, the respondent judges issued the contested orders releasing the accrued rentals to Wenceslao Zubiri.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judges acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the orders directing the release of the rental deposits to Wenceslao Zubiri.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The legal logic centers on the finality of the orders in the special proceedings and the propriety of certiorari as a remedy. The Court held that the respondent judges did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The orders allowing the withdrawal of rentals were issued after the properties had already been adjudicated to Wenceslao Zubiri in Spec. Proc. No. IL-2, a proceeding that was terminated and whose order had become final and executory. The collection of rentals was a logical exercise of his rights as the declared owner. Furthermore, the Court found that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the probate court’s final order through a separate civil action, as she had been duly notified of the special proceedings but did not appeal the order declaring Wenceslao Zubiri the sole heir.
Additionally, the Court noted that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. The petitioner had previously attempted to appeal the May 1967 order, but her appeal was dismissed. She failed to demonstrate that the loss of her right to appeal was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, nor did she show the probable merit of her claim to justify the extraordinary writ. The existence of a bond filed by Wenceslao Zubiri to answer for any damages also mitigated any potential prejudice. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion was found in the issuance of the challenged orders.