"x x x.
One. The CA held that based on the article Women Physicians of the World[9] found in the record of the case before it, the late Rosita, a physician, had adopted Raymond as her child. An adopted child, said the CA, is deemed a legitimate child of the adopter. This being the case, Raymond’s presence barred Eleuterio and Rosita’s other collateral relatives from inheriting intestate from her.[10] A further consequence is that they also did not have the right to seek the production and examination of the documents allegedly in Robert’s possession.
But, whether or not the late Rosita had judicially adopted Raymond as her child is a question of fact that had neither been considered nor passed upon by the RTC in a direct challenge to the claim of Eleuterio and Rosita’s other collateral relatives that they have the right to inherit from her. The relevant issue before the RTC was only whether or not the duly appointed administrator of Rosita’s estate had the right to the production and examination of the documents believed to be in Robert’s possession. Indeed, one of the reasons Robert brought the special civil action of certiorari before the CA is that Eleuterio had no right to inspect the requested documents and have access to Adolfo’s estate when Eleuterio’s authority as administrator extended only to Rosita’s estate.
The Court understands the CA’s commendable desire to minimize multiple appeals. But the issues regarding the late Rosita’s supposed judicial adoption of Raymond as her child and the consequent absence of right on the part of Eleuterio, et al. to file a petition for the settlement of Rosita’s estate were never raised and properly tried before the RTC. Consequently, the CA gravely abused its discretion in adjudicating such issues and denying Eleuterio and his relatives their right to be heard on them.
x x x."
