Whether the appeal against the peace judge’s letter was admissible as a challenge to a formal decision on the heir certificate.
The letter was only a provisional opinion and not a formal decision; the appeal was therefore premature and inadmissible.
The court held that the contested letter merely expressed a non-binding view on who might be designated in the heir certificate, while the actual issuance remained suspended pending another action. The proper challenge would lie against the eventual content of the certificate.