SILVERIO JR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS 600 SCRA 1

FACTS: 

Beatriz Silverio died and her husband Ricardo Sr. filed an intestate proceeding for the settlement of her estate. Ricardo Sr. was appointed as administrator. On January 3, 2005, Ricardo Jr. filed an opposition, he is then appointed as new administrator. On December 12, 2005, Ricardo Sr. was reinstated as administrator. On May 31, 2005, the trial court issued an order directing Nelia (daughter) to vacate the Forbes Park property. It also allowed the sale of various properties of the intestate estate of Beatriz to partially settle the estate taxes, penalties, interests and other charges due. Among the properties authorized to be sold was one located in Forbes Park. Nelia filed a notice of appeal from the decision of the trial court authorizing the sale of the Forbes Park property. Meanwhile, Ricardo Jr. filed a motion to dismiss appeal and for the issuance of a writ of execution against the appeal of Nelia.

ISSUE: WON the filing of Notice of Appeal by Nelia is the proper remedy.

RULING: 

NO. The purported authority of Nelia, which she allegedly secured from Ricardo Sr., was never approved by the probate court. Therefore, she never had any real interest in the specific property located in Forbes Park. As such, the May 31, 2005 Order of the RTC must be considered as interlocutory and, therefore, not subject to an appeal. An interlocutory order is one which does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something to be decided upon. It is only after a judgment has been rendered in the case that the ground for the appeal of the interlocutory order may be included in the appeal of the judgment itself. The interlocutory order generally cannot be appealed separately from the judgment. It is only when such interlocutory order was rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion that certiorari under Rule 65 may be resorted to. Thus, Nelia employed the wrong mode of appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal with the RTC. Hence, for employing the improper mode of appeal, the case should have been dismissed. The implication of such improper appeal is that the notice of appeal did not toll the reglementary period for the filing of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, the proper remedy in the instant case. This means that Nelia has now lost her remedy of appeal from the May 31, 2005 Order of the RTC.