G.R. No. L-6736; May 4, 1954
ISABEL GABRIEL, ETC., ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL., ETC., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners are Isabel Gabriel, widow of the deceased Eligio Naval, and Rudyardo Santiago, a co-administrator of the estate in Special Proceedings No. R-667 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig branch. Respondent Petrita Pascual is a co-administratrix. On November 28, 1952, Petrita Pascual and her co-heirs filed a motion praying for the sale of all the real properties of the intestate estate at public bidding. The motion was set for hearing on December 5, 1952, but was not heard due to the judge’s absence. The case was later transferred to the Caloocan branch. On April 6, 1953, the co-administratrix filed a motion in the Caloocan court, noting the pendency of their motion for sale and praying that all pending incidents be referred back to the Pasig branch. This motion was set for hearing on April 20, 1953. During that hearing, arguments were presented for and against the motion for transfer. Subsequently, on April 29, 1953, Judge Francisco Arca issued an order granting the motion to sell the real properties and setting the sale for May 30, 1953. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the motion for sale was not properly before the court for consideration during the April 20 hearing, as the hearing was for the motion to transfer the case, not for the motion to sell. This motion for reconsideration was denied by Judge Demetrio B. Encarnacion on May 27, 1953. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the order issued by Judge Francisco Arca dated April 29, 1953, authorizing the sale of the estate’s real properties, and the order of Judge Demetrio B. Encarnacion dated May 27, 1953, denying the motion for reconsideration, are valid.

RULING

No. The orders are set aside. The Supreme Court ruled that the order authorizing the sale was issued in violation of mandatory procedural rules. Under Section 4, Rule 90, for a court to authorize such a sale, the administrator must file a written petition setting forth the facts showing the necessity of the sale, and the court must fix a time and place for hearing such petition and cause notice to be given to interested persons. These regulations are mandatory. In this case, the motion for sale filed on November 28, 1952, was initially set for hearing on December 5, 1952, but was not heard. It was never set for hearing again. The discussion on the merits of the sale during the April 20, 1953 hearing was incidental, as that hearing was called for the motion to transfer the case. The petitioners were not properly notified that the motion for sale itself would be heard and argued on that date. Therefore, the order granting the sale without a proper hearing is void. The Court ordered that a new date be set for the hearing of the “Motion for Sale of Real Estate” in accordance with the rules. The Court also suggested that, given the estate’s long pendency, the remedy might be to pursue partition rather than an immediate sale.