Felix Uy Chua, Robert Iping Chua, Richard Uy Chua and Atty. Federico Cabilao, Jr. vs.

Court of Appeals, Sofia

Sanchez, assisted by husband Fortunato Sanchez
GR. 121438 October 23,2000
Facts :
Fernando Morada owned a lot in Cebu. When he died, the probate court presented by Judge Abarquez appointed the
wife of the deceased named Aida as administratrix of the estate.
The probate court allowed the sale of lot to spouses Precioso and Consolacion Enriquez for P200,000. Later on, the
spouses and Aida agreed to rescind the said sale.
The probate court allowed the resale of lot. Hence, Sofia Sanchez was able to buy it for P1M.
Then an intervenor Sagrario Morelos filed a motion for reconsideration opposing the sale alleging that the sale was
prejudicial to the minor heirs of Fernando Morada because the lot can be sold for P1.5M.
Atty. Cabilao, another intervenor filed his proposal to purchase the property for P1.5M.
In her comment and opposition to the proposal of Atty. Cabilao, Aida Morada said that the court's order approving the
sale to Sofia Sanchez had already become final and executory.
Before Judge Abarquez inhibited himself and before the case was re-raffled to branch 12 under Portion Hormachuelos,
he issued an order revoking his approval of the sale and declared void and without effect the deed of absolute sale he had
earlier approved to Sofia Sanchez by reason of fraud and misrepresentation. And he also approved the proposal of Atty.
Cabilao to purchase the property in question.
Sofia Sanchez filed a manifestation and urgent motion but the same was dismissed by the new judge handling the case.
Hence, Sofia Sanchez filed a motion for reconsideration and made a counter offer of P1.6M, a hundred thousand pesos
more than the amount offered by Atty. Cabilao. But the motion was denied. The court said that the order approving the
sale to Atty. Cabilao had becomde final and executory and that the counter offer was not compelling reason for the court
to vacate its order. As it turned out, the property was bought by Chuas.
Sanchez filed a petition for certiorari under rule 65 before the CA alleging that respondents Judges Abarquez and
Hormachelos abused their discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when they issued the orders of declaring the sale
in favor of Sanchez as void and approving the proposal of Atty. Cabilao to purchase the property in question.
The court of appeals ruled that the sale of the property to Atty. Cabilao was void because the court was already without
jurisdiction to enter the same after the sale to Sanchez, which was previously approved by the same court, was
consummated and the intervenors failed to seasonably appeal therefrom.
- Petitioners allege that the proper remedy for respondent was to appeal under Rule 45 under which private respondent
was already time-barred and the Court of Appeals should not have taken cognizance of the petition.
Issue : Whether or not it is an error to bring the case before the CA on certiorari under Rule 65.
Held:
NO.
A special civil action for certiorari challenging the RTC with grave abuse of discretion may be instituted either in the
Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. Both have original concurrent jurisdiction.
Certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy or adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law.
While ordinarily, certiorari is unavailing where the appeal period has lapsed, there are exceptions. Among them are (a)
when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; (b) when the broader interest of justice so requires;
(c) when the writs issued are null and void; (d) or when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of
judicial authority.
As early as Crisostomo vs. Endencia,we held:
The remedy by certiorari may be successfully invoked both in cases wherein an appeal does not lie and in those
wherein the right to appeal having been lost with or without the appellants negligence, the court has no jurisdiction to
issue the order or decision which is the subject matter of the remedy.
The questioned orders of the probate court nullifying the sale to Sanchez after it approved the sale and after its order of
approval had become final and executory amount to oppressive exercise of judicial authority, a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Further orders stemming therefrom are also null and without effect.