G.R. No. L-77660 July 28, 1988
ELADIO DILLENA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and AURORA CARREON, respondents.

FACTS

Spouses Rufino Carreon and Dolores Sebastian died intestate. A special proceeding for the settlement of their estate (Sp. Proc. No. Q-19378) was instituted. Private respondent Aurora Carreon, the adopted daughter, was eventually appointed administratrix. While the estate was under administration, Carreon executed an extrajudicial settlement adjudicating to herself three fishpond properties of the estate. She then sold these fishponds to petitioner Eladio Dillena on November 13, 1978. This sale was executed without seeking or obtaining the requisite authority and approval from the probate court. The probate court later discovered this and other unauthorized sales. After requiring the vendees to show cause why the sales should not be cancelled, and with Dillena failing to submit an explanation, the court issued an order on September 13, 1984, declaring the sale to Dillena null and void for lack of court approval.
Dillena did not appeal this September 13, 1984 order. Instead, months later, he filed a petition before the same probate court, challenging its jurisdiction to annul the sale. He argued the court, as a probate court, lacked such power, that he was not a party to the proceedings, and that the properties were located outside its territorial jurisdiction. The probate court denied his petition. Dillena then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed. Hence, this petition for review.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the probate court acted with grave abuse of discretion in annulling the sale of estate properties executed by the administratrix without court approval.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The probate court acted within its jurisdiction and did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of estate administration and the limited powers of an administrator. Properties under administration are in custodia legis, and the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over their disposition. An administrator cannot validly sell estate properties without prior court authorization as required under Sections 4 and 7, Rule 89 of the Rules of Court. A sale executed without such approval is null and void; it does not bind the estate, and title does not pass to the purchaser. Consequently, the probate court that possesses the power to authorize a sale also possesses the correlative power to declare null and void any unauthorized disposition, as long as the proceedings are pending.
Furthermore, the Court found Dillena’s petition procedurally infirm. The order of nullity dated September 13, 1984, had become final and executory due to his failure to appeal within the reglementary period. The remedy of certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. His belated challenge to the probate court’s jurisdiction could not revive his right to assail the substantive order that had already attained finality. The annotation of an attorney’s lien on the estate properties was also upheld as a proper exercise of the probate court’s authority to allow payment of administrative expenses from the estate assets.