When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God; He created them male and female.
The instant controversy stemmed from the settlement of estate of the deceased Beatriz Silverio. After her death, her surviving spouse, Ricardo Silverio, Sr.
On November 16,during the pendency of the case, Ricardo Silverio, Jr.
On January 26,Nelia S. Silverio-Dee filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated January 3,as well as all other related orders. She received a copy of the said Order onJune 8, Instead of filing a Notice of Appeal and Record on Appeal, private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order.
This motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated December 12, This Order was received by private respondent on December 22, On January 6,private respondent filed her Notice of Appeal while she filed her Record on Appeal on January 23, Thus, onApril 2,the RTC issued an Order denying the appeal on the ground that it was not perfected within the reglementary period.
The RTC further issued a writ of execution for the enforcement of the Order datedMay 31, against private respondent to vacate the premises.
The Orders are interlocutory and thus, cannot be appealed. The denial of due course by the RTC was based on two 2 grounds: Petitioner argues that because private respondent filed a Notice of Appeal from the Order dated December 12, which denied her motion for reconsideration of the Omnibus Order dated May 31,her appeal is of an order denying a motion for reconsideration.
Thus, petitioner alleges that private respondent employed the wrong remedy in filing a notice of appeal and should have filed a petition for certiorari with the CA under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court instead.
A final order is one that disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined by the court, whilean interlocutory order is one which does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something to be decided upon.
Additionally, 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.
In the instant case, Nelia Silverio-Dee appealed the May 31, Order of the RTC on the ground that it ordered her to vacate the premises of the property located atNo. On that aspect the order is not a final determination of the case or of the issue of distribution of the shares of the heirs in the estate or their rights therein.
She, therefore, never had any real interest in the specific property located atNo. As such, the May 31, Order of the RTC must be considered as interlocutory and, therefore, not subject to an appeal.
Thus, private respondent employed the wrong mode of appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal with the RTC.Silverio v. CA Facts: Â Â The instant controversy stemmed from the settlement of estate of the deceased Beatriz Silverio.
After her death, her surviving spouse, Ricardo. Accordingly.  with the CA. the CA ruled that the Notice of Appeal was filed within the reglementary period provided by the Rules of Court applying the fresh rule period enunciated by this Court in Neypes v.
ordering private respondent to leave the premises of the subject property within ten (10) days. Apr 08, · G.R. No. April 8, RICARDO C. SILVERIO, petitioner, vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BENIGNO G. GAVIOLA, as Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. His name was registered as "Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio" in his certificate of live birth (birth certificate).
His sex was registered as "male." He further alleged that he is a male transsexual, that is, "anatomically male but feels, 6 Docketed as CA-G.R.
SP No. Edmundo S. Silverio also filed an opposition for the removal of Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. as administrator of the estate and for the appointment of a new administrator. - RTC granted the petition and removed Silverio Sr. as administrator of the estate, while appointing Silverio Jr.
as the new administrator. View Homework Help - Silverio vs. CA from LAW at Aquinas University of Legazpi. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION RICARDO S. SILVERIO, JR. G.R. No.