Professional Documents
Culture Documents
4- CASE DIGESTS
JAYSON ABABA
MESINA V. IAC
FACTS:
Jose Go purchased from Associate Bank a Cashiers Check, which he left on
top of the managers desk when left the bank. The bank manager
then had it kept for safekeeping by one of its employees.
The
employee was then in conference with one Alexander Lim. He left the check
in
his
desk
and upon his return, Lim and the check were gone.
When Go
inquired about his check, the same couldn't be found and Go was advised to
request for the stoppage of payment which he did. He executed also an
affidavit
of
loss
as
well
as
reported
it
to
the
police.
The bank then received the check twice for clearing. For these two times,
they dishonored the payment by saying that payment has been
stopped. After the second time, a lawyer contacted it demanding
payment. He refused to disclose the name of his client and threatened to
sue.
Later,
the
name of Mesina was revealed. When asked by the police on how he
possessed the check, he said it was paid to him Lim. An information for
theft
was
then
filed
against
Lim.
A case of interpleader was filed by the bank and Go moved to participate as
intervenor in the complaint for damages.
Mesina moved for the
dismissal of the case but was denied.
The trial court ruled in the
interpleader case ordering the bank to replace the cashiers check in favor of
Go.
ISSUE: did IAC go beyond the scope of its certiorari jurisdiction by making
findings of facts in advance of trial.
HELD:
The records of the case show that respondent bank had to resort to details
in support of its action for Interpleader. Before it resorted to Interpleader,
3062, September 28, 1951, wherein we held that: "A petition for declaratory
relief must be predicated on the following requisites: (1) there must be a
justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose
interest are adverse; (3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a
legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue invoked must be ripe for
judicial determination."chanrobles virtual law library
While the Solicitor General contends that the justiciable controversy is one
involving " an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right on one side and a
denial thereof on the other concerning a real, and not a mere theoretical
question or issue (1 C.J.S., p. 1026)," and that in the present case "no
specific person was mentioned in the petition as having or claiming an
adverse interest in the matter and with whom the appellees have an actual
controversy," the appellees argue that, by virtue of the answer filed by the
Solicitor General opposing the petition for declaratory relief, a justiciable
controversy thereby arose. We are of the opinion that the appellant's
contention is tenable, since there is nothing in the petition which even
intimates that the alleged status of the appellees as Filipino citizens had in
any instance been questioned or denied by any specific person or authority.
Indeed, the petition alleges that the appellees have considered themselves
and were considered by their friends and neighbors as Filipino citizens, voted
in the general elections of 1946 and 1947, and were registered voters for
the elections of 1951, and it is not pretended that on any of said occasions
their citizenship was controverted. It is not accurate to say, as appellees do,
that an actual controversy arose after the filing by the Solicitor General of an
opposition to the petition, for the reason that the cause of action must be
made out by the allegations of the complaint or petition, without the aid of
the answer. As a matter of fact, the answer herein alleges that the petition
states no cause of action. In essence, the appellees merely wanted to
remove all doubts in their minds as to their citizenship, but an action for
declaratory judgment cannot be invoked solely to determine or try issues or
to determine a moot, abstract or theoretical question, or decide claims which
are uncertain or hypothetical. (1 C.J.S., p. 1024.) And the fact that the
appellees' desires are thwarted by their "own doubts, or by fears of others . .
. does not confer a cause of action." (Moran, Comments on the Rules of
Court, 1952 ed., Vol. II, p. 148, citing Willing vs. Chicago Auditorium Assn.,
277 U.S., 274, 289, 48 Sup. Ct., 507, 509.)chanrobles virtual law library
In view of what had been said, it becomes unnecessary to discuss either the
second contention of the Solicitor General that the trial court erred in holding
that the petition for declaratory relief may be utilized to obtain a judicial
pronouncement as to appellees' citizenship, or his third contention that the
evidence does not support the conclusion in the appealed decision that the
Finally, on July 31, 1956, the lower court, resolving the motion to dismiss
filed by respondent, dismissed the complaint.
Issue: whether or not the facts alleged in the petition for Declaratory Relief
and others elicited from the parties and made of record by them prior to the
issuance of the order appealed from, this case was properly dismissed.
Held:
Petitioner commenced this action as, and clearly intended it to be one for
Declaratory Relief under the provisions of Rule 66 of the Rules of Court. On
the question of when a special civil action of this nature would prosper, we
have already held that the complaint for declaratory relief will not prosper if
filed after a contract, statute or right has been breached or violated. In the
present case such is precisely the situation arising from the facts alleged in
the petition for declaratory relief. As vigorously claimed by petitioner himself,
respondent had already invaded or violated his right and caused him injury
all these giving him a complete cause of action enforceable in an
appropriate ordinary civil action or proceeding. The dismissal of the action
was, therefore, proper in the light of our ruling in De Borja vs. Villadolid, 47
O.G. (5) p. 2315, and Samson vs. Andal, G.R. No. L-3439, July 31, 1951,
where we held that an action for declaratory relief should be filed before
there has been a breach of a contract, statutes or right, and that it is
sufficient to bar such action, that there had been a breach which would
constitute actionable violation. The rule is that an action for Declaratory
Relief is proper only if adequate relief is not available through the means of
other existing forms of action or proceeding (1 C.J.S. 1027-1028).
WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed from is hereby affirmed,
without prejudice to the aggrieved party seeking relief in another
appropriate action. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by Us on
November 5, 1956 is hereby set aside, and the motion for contempt filed by
petitioner on September 30, 1957 is denied. With costs against appellant.
MALANA VS TAPPA
G.R. No. 18130; September 17, 2009
FACTS:
Petitioners filed before the RTC their Complaint for Reivindicacion, Quieting
of Title, and Damages against respondents alleging that they are the owners
of a parcel of land situated in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. Petitioners inherited
the subject property from AnastacioDanao (Anastacio), who died
intestate. During the lifetime of Anastacio, he had allowed Consuelo Pauig to
build on and occupy the southern portion of the subject property. Anastacio
and Consuelo agreed that the latter would vacate the said land at any time
that Anastacio and his heirs might need it.
Petitioners claimed that respondents, Consuelos family members, continued
to occupy the subject property even after her death, already building their
residences thereon using permanent materials. Petitioners also learned that
respondents were claiming ownership over the subject property. Averring
that they already needed it, petitioners demanded that respondents vacate
the same. Respondents, however, refused to heed petitioners demand.
Petitioners
referred
their
land
dispute
with
respondents
to
the LupongTagapamayapa of
Barangay
Annafunan
West
for
conciliation. During the conciliation proceedings, respondents asserted that
they owned the subject property and presented documents ostensibly
supporting their claim of ownership. According to petitioners, respondents
documents were highly dubious, falsified, and incapable of proving the
latters claim of ownership over the subject property; nevertheless, they
created a cloud upon petitioners title to the property. Thus, petitioners were
compelled to file before the RTC a Complaint to remove such cloud from
their title. However, such complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The RTC referred to Republic Act No. 7691, amending Batas PambansaBlg.
129, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, which
vests the RTC with jurisdiction over real actions, where the assessed value of
the property involved exceeds P20,000.00. It found that the subject property
had a value of less than P20,000.00; hence, petitioners action to recover the
same was outside the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the aforementioned RTC
Order dismissing their Complaint. They argued that their principal cause of
action was for quieting of title; the accionreivindicacion was included merely
to enable them to seek complete relief from respondents. Petitioners
Complaint should not have been dismissed, since Section 1, Rule 63 of the
Rules of Court states that an action to quiet title falls under the jurisdiction
of the RTC.
In an Order dated 30 May 2007, the RTC denied petitioners Motion for
Reconsideration. It reasoned that an action to quiet title is a real
action. Pursuant to Republic Act No. 7691, it is the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) that exercises exclusive jurisdiction over real actions where the
assessed value of real property does not exceed P20,000.00. Since the
assessed value of subject property was P410.00, the real action involving the
same was outside the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Petitioners filed another pleading, simply designated as Motion, in which they
prayed that the RTC Orders dated 4 May 2007 and 30 May 2007, dismissing
their Complaint, be set aside. They reiterated their earlier argument that
Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court states that an action to quiet title
falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC. They also contended that
there was no obstacle to their joining the two causes of action, i.e., quieting
of title and reivindicacion, in a single Complaint. And even if the two causes
of action could not be joined, petitioners maintained that the misjoinder of
said causes of action was not a ground for the dismissal of their Complaint.
The RTC issued an Order dated 31 October 2007 denying petitioners
Motion. It clarified that their Complaint was dismissed, not on the ground of
misjoinder of causes of action, but for lack of jurisdiction. The RTC dissected
Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
Section 1. Who may file petition. Any person interested
under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or
whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or
regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation
may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the
appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of
construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights
or duties, thereunder.
An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet
title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to
consolidate ownership under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may
be brought under this Rule.
The RTC differentiated between the first and the second paragraphs of
Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court. The first paragraph refers to an
action for declaratory relief, which should be brought before the RTC. The
over the action. In other words, a court has no more jurisdiction over an
action for declaratory relief if its subject has already been infringed or
transgressed before the institution of the action.
In the present case, petitioners Complaint for quieting of title was
filed after petitioners already demanded and respondents refused to vacate
the subject property. In fact, said Complaint was filed only subsequent to the
latters express claim of ownership over the subject property before
the LupongTagapamayapa, in direct challenge to petitioners title.
Since petitioners averred in the Complaint that they had already
been deprived of the possession of their property, the proper remedy
for
them
is
the
filing
of
an accionpubliciana or
an accionreivindicatoria,
not
a
case
for
declaratory
relief. An accionpubliciana is a suit for the recovery of possession, filed one
year after the occurrence of the cause of action or from the unlawful
withholding of possession of the realty. An accionreivindicatoria is a suit that
has for its object ones recovery of possession over the real property as
owner.
Petitioners
Complaint
contained
sufficient
allegations
for
an accionreivindicatoria. Jurisdiction over such an action would depend on
the value of the property involved. Given that the subject property herein is
valued only at P410.00, then the MTC, not the RTC, has jurisdiction over an
action to recover the same. The RTC, therefore, did not commit grave abuse
of discretion in dismissing, without prejudice, petitioners Complaint in Civil
Case No. 6868 for lack of jurisdiction.
ENG VS LEE
FACTS:
Nixon Lees father passed away on June 22, 1992 in Manila and left a
holographic will, which is now in the custody of petitioner UyKiaoEng, his
mother. Nixon Lee filed, on May 28, 2001, a petition for mandamus with
damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, to compel his
mother to produce the will so that probate proceedings for the allowance
thereof could be instituted.
Allegedly, Lee had already requested his mother to settle and liquidate
the patriarchs estate and to deliver to the legal heirs their respective
inheritance, but petitioner refused to do so without any justifiable reason.
KiaoEng traversed the allegations in the complaint and posited that the
same be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action, for lack of cause of
action, and for non-compliance with a condition precedent for the filing
thereof. She denied that she was in custody of the original holographic will
and that she knew of its whereabouts. She, moreover, asserted that
photocopies of the will were given to Lee and to his siblings.
The RTC heard the case. After the presentation and formal offer of
respondent Lees evidence, petitioner KiaoEng demurred, contending that
her son failed to prove that she had in her custody the original holographic
will.
She asserted that the pieces of documentary evidence presented,
aside from being hearsay, were all immaterial and irrelevant to the issue
involved in the petition and that they did not prove or disprove that she
unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically
enjoined as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, for the court to
issue the writ of mandamus.
RTC denied the demurrer but granted the same upon motion for
reconsideration. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was
denied and the case was dismissed.
Aggrieved, Lee appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals which
was denied or lack of merit. However, it was granted when respondent
moved
for
reconsideration.
The
appellate
court
amended
its
decision, granted the motion, set aside its earlier ruling, issued the writ, and
ordered the production of the will anchored on the basis that this time
respondent was able to show by testimonial evidence that his mother had in
her possession the holographic will.
KiaoEng moved for reconsideration but the same was denied. Left with
no other recourse KiaoEng brought the case before the Supreme Court is a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing
mandamus cannot be availed of. Suffice it to state that respondent Lee lacks
a cause of action in his petition.
The petition for review on certiorari was granted.
Issue: Whether the denial of the issuance of the writ of possession is valid
Held: It is settled that questions regarding the validity of a mortgage or its
foreclosure as well as the sale of the property covered by the mortgage
cannot be raised as ground to deny the issuance of a writ of possession. Any
such questions must be determined in a subsequent proceeding as in fact,
herein respondents commenced an action for Annulment of Certificate of
Sale, Promissory Note and Deed of Mortgage.
The court a quo denied the issuance of the writ as it credited respondents
opposition to petitioners petition for the issuance of a writ of possession.
By crediting
empted its
respondents
respondents
respondents opposition, Branch 77 of the court a quo preco-equal branch, Branch 221, to which jurisdiction over
annulment petition was laid, from determining the merits of
claim-basis of said petition.
Act No. 8501, was breached before filing the action. As we said in
Tambunting, Jr. v. Sumabat:
. . . The purpose of the action [for declaratory relief] is to secure
an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the
parties under a statute, deed, contract, etc. for their guidance in
its enforcement or compliance and not to settle issues arising
from its alleged breach. It may be entertained only before the
breach or violation of the statute, deed, contract, etc. to which it
refers. Where the law or contract has already been
contravened prior to the filing of an action for declaratory
relief, the court can no longer assume jurisdiction over
the action. Under such circumstances, inasmuch as a
cause of action has already accrued in favor of one or the
other party, there is nothing more for the court to explain
or clarify short of a judgment or final order
DARIO vs MISON
176 SCRA 84
FACTS: On March 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino promulgated
Proclamation No. 3, "DECLARING A NATIONAL POLICY TO IMPLEMENT THE
REFORMS MANDATED BY THE PEOPLE, PROTECTING THEIR BASIC RIGHTS,
ADOPTING A PROVISIONAL CONSTITUTION, AND PROVIDING FOR AN
ORDERLY TRANSITION TO A GOVERNMENT UNDER A NEW CONSTITUTION.
Among other things, Proclamation No. 3 provided:
SECTION 1. The President shall give priority to measures to achieve the
mandate of the people to:
(a) Completely reorganize the government, eradicate unjust and oppressive
structures, and all iniquitous vestiges of the previous regime.
Actually, the reorganization process started as early as February 25, 1986,
when the President, in her first act in office, called upon "all appointive
public officials to submit their courtesy resignations beginning with the
members of the Supreme Court." Later on, she abolished the
BatasangPambansa and the positions of Prime Minister and Cabinet under
the 1973 Constitution.
On May 28, 1986, the President enacted Executive Order No. 17,
394 Customs personnel but replaced them with 522 as of August 18, 1988.
On June 30, 1988, the Civil Service Commission promulgated its ruling
ordering the reinstatement of the 279 employees. On July 15, 1988,
Commissioner Mison, represented by the Solicitor General, filed a motion for
reconsideration. Acting on the motion, the Civil Service Commission, on
September 20, 1988, denied reconsideration. On October 20, 1988,
Commissioner Mison instituted certiorari proceedings with this Court.
On November 16, 1988, the Civil Service Commission further disposed the
appeal (from the resolution of the Reorganization Appeals Board) of five
more employees. On January 6, 1989, Commissioner Mison challenged the
Civil Service Commissions Resolution in this Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not Executive Order No. 127, which provided for the
reorganization of the Bureau of Customs is valid
RULING: Yes. There is no question that the administration may validly carry
out a government reorganization insofar as these cases are concerned,
the reorganization of the Bureau of Customs by mandate not only of the
Provisional Constitution, supra, but also of the various Executive Orders
decreed by the Chief Executive in her capacity as sole lawmaking authority
under the 1986-1987 revolutionary government. It should also be noted that
under the present Constitution, there is a recognition, albeit implied, that a
government reorganization may be legitimately undertaken, subject to
certain conditions.
RATIO:Reorganizations have been regarded as valid provided they are
pursued in good faith.
TOMATIC ARATUC VS COMELEC
G.R. No. L-49705-09
February 8, 1979
Facts:
Petitioners are independent candidates for representatives to tile Interim
BatasangPambansa who had joined together under the banner of the
Kunsensiya ng Bayan. They complained of alleged irregularities in the
election records in all the voting centers in the whole province of Lanao del
Sur, and eleven towns in Sultan Kudarat, by reason for which, petitioners
had asked that the returns from said voting centers be excluded from the
canvass. The Regional Board of Canvassers issued a resolution, over the
objection of petitioners, declaring all eight KBL candidates elected.
Appeal was taken by the petitioners to the COMELEC. The COMELEC issued
its questioned resolution declaring seven KBL candidates and one KB
candidate as having obtained the first eight places, and ordering the
Regional Board of Canvassers to proclaim the winners. Petitioners filed a
petition for certiorari with restraining order and preliminary injunction
alleging that the COMELEC committee grave abuse of discretion, amounting
to lack of jurisdiction.
Issue:
WON certiorari is the proper remedy
Ruling:
This is as it should be. A review includes digging into the merits and
unearthing errors of judgment, while certiorari deals exclusively with grave
abuse of discretion, which may not exist even when the decision is otherwise
erroneous. certiorari implies an indifferent disregard of the law, arbitrariness
and caprice, an omission to weight pertinent considerations, a decision
arrived at without rational deliberation. While the effects of an error of
judgment may not differ from that of an indiscretion, as a matter of policy,
there are matters that by their nature ought to be left for final determination
to the sound discretion of certain officers or entities, reserving it to the
Supreme Court to insure the faithful observance of due process only in cases
of patent arbitrariness.
We hold, therefore that under the existing constitution and statutory
provisions, the certiorari jurisdiction of the Court over orders, and decisions
of the Comelec is not as broad as it used to be and should be confined to
instances of grave abuse of discretion amounting to patent and substantial
denial of due process. Accordingly, it is in this light that We the opposing
contentions of the parties in this cases.
The Interim Rules was enacted to provide for a summary and nonadversarial rehabilitation proceedings. This is in consonance with the
commercial nature of a rehabilitation case, which is aimed to be resolved
expeditiously for the benefit of all the parties concerned and the economy in
general.
As provided in the Interim Rules, the basic procedure is as follows:
1) The petition is filed with the appropriate Regional Trial Court;
2) If the petition is found to be sufficient in form and substance, the
trial court shall issue a Stay Order, which shall provide, among others,
for the appointment of a Rehabilitation Receiver; the fixing of the
initial hearing on the petition; a directive to the petitioner to publish
the Order in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines once
a week for two (2) consecutive weeks; and a directive to all creditors
and all interested parties (including the Securities and Exchange
Commission) to file and serve on the debtor a verified comment on or
opposition to the petition, with supporting affidavits and documents.
3) Publication of the Stay Order;
4) Initial hearing on any matter relating to the petition or on any
comment and/or opposition filed in connection therewith. If the trial
court is satisfied that there is merit in the petition, it shall give due
course to the petition;
5) Referral for evaluation of the rehabilitation plan to the rehabilitation
receiver who shall submit his recommendations to the court;
6) Modifications or revisions of the rehabilitation plan as necessary;
7) Submission of final rehabilitation plan to the trial court for
approval;\
8) Approval/disapproval of rehabilitation plan by the trial court;
In the present case, the petition for rehabilitation did not run its full course
but was dismissed by the RTC after due consideration of the pleadings filed
before it. On this score, the RTC cannot be faulted for its summary dismissal,
as it is tantamount to a finding that there is no merit to the petition. This is
in accord with the trial courts authority to give due course to the petition or
not under Rule 4, Section 9 of the Interim Rules. Letting the petition go
through the process only to be dismissed later on because there are no
assets to be conserved will not only defeat the reason for the rules but will
also be a waste of the trial courts time and resources.
The CA also correctly ruled that petitioner availed of the wrong remedy when
it filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court.
Certiorari is a remedy for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of
judgment. It is an original and independent action that was not part of the
trial that had resulted in the rendition of the judgment or order complained
of. More importantly, since the issue is jurisdiction, an original action for
certiorari may be directed against an interlocutory order of the lower court
prior to an appeal from the judgment; or where there is no appeal or any
plain, speedy or adequate remedy. A petition for certiorari should be filed not
later than sixty days from the notice of judgment, order, or resolution, and a
motion for reconsideration is generally required prior to the filing of a
petition for certiorari, in order to afford the tribunal an opportunity to correct
the alleged errors.
that the trial court gravely abused its judicial disretion in denying their
demurrer to evidence and their prayer for bail.
On March 20, 2000, defense counsel moved to suspend proceedings of
the trial court pending the final disposition by the Court of Appeals on their
Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus.
The trial court resumed and promulgated its judgment finding
appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced to death.
ISSUE:
Whether trial court erred in proceeding to resolve the case without
awaiting the resolution of CA in the appellants petition for certiorari?
RULING:
The case for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with Preliminary
Injunction, which was filed by the defense counsel with the CA to assail the
trial courts denial of their demurrer to evidence, did not interrupt the course
of the principal action nor the running of the reglementary periods involved
in the proceedings.
Settled is the rule that to arrest the course of the principal action
during the pendency of certiorari proceedings, there must be restraining
order or a writ of preliminary injunction from the appellate court directed to
the lower court. There was none in the instant case.
Case remanded to the trial court for reception of defense evidence.
of the bench and bar that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65
lies only when there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law. Certiorari is not allowed when a party to a case
fails to appeal a judgment despite the availability of that remedy. The
remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative
or successive.
Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for the lapsed or lost remedy of
appeal. Banco Filipinos recourse to a special civil action for certiorariwas
borne not out of the conviction that grave abuse of discretion attended the
resolution of its petition before the Court of Appeals but simply because
of its failure to file a timely appeal to this Court.
It is true that this Court may treat a petition for certiorari as having been
filed under Rule 45 to serve the higher interest of justice, but not when the
petition is filed well beyond the reglementary period for filing a petition for
review and without offering any reason therefor.
Banco Filipino from the order of the RTC, it filed its petition
for certiorari some fourteen (14) days after the lapse of the
reglementary period to appeal to the Court of Appeals. Likewise, when
it filed
its petition for certiorari before this Court, forty five (45) days
have already passed since the end of the fifteen (15) day
reglementary period for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Concomitant to a liberal application of the rules of procedure should be an
effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to at least explain its failure
to comply with the rules. There must be exceptional circumstances to justify
the relaxation of the rules, we cannot find any such exceptional
circumstances in this case and neither has Banco Filipino endeavored to
prove the existence of any. Another elementary rule of procedure
applies and that is the doctrine that perfection of an appeal within
the reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional
so that failure to do so renders the questioned decision final and
executory, and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter
the final judgment, much less to entertain the appeal
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 appellant's 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.
and B at the second floor. The period of the lease is for two (2) years,
commencing July 15, 2001 and ending June 30, 2003. The monthly rental
is P400.00 per square meter for Unit 203 A and P500.00 per square meter
for Unit 203 B.
Starting August 2001, petitioner defaulted in the payment of the monthly
rentals and failed to pay despite demands by respondent. Thus, on May 14,
2002, respondent filed with the RTC, Branch 61, Baguio City, a Complaint for
Collection of Sum of Money with Damages.
On June 3, 2002, petitioner filed with the RTC a Motion to Dismiss on the
ground, among others, that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the complaint
considering that the allegations therein clearly indicate that the action is one
for ejectment (illegal detainer) which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Municipal Trial Court (MTC).
The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss for lack of merit. Barroza, petitioner,
filed the instant Petition for Certiorari alleging that: (1) the RTC committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
denying her Motion to Dismiss; and (2) the Resolution denying her Motion to
Dismiss is unconstitutional as it does not state its legal basis.
On the other hand, respondent RTC Baguio City, in praying for the dismissal
of the petition, contends that (1) the complaint is for the collection of unpaid
rentals as there is absolutely no allegation that its intent is to eject petitioner
from the premises; (2) petitioner should have first filed a motion for
reconsideration before resorting to the extraordinary suit of certiorari; and
(3) the assailed order denying petitioners motion to dismiss is interlocutory
and, therefore, cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari.
ISSUE:
(1)
Whether Motion for reconsideration should have been filed prior
to filing certiorari;
(2)
Whether denial of motion to dismiss which is an interlocutory
order be subject of a petition for certiorari
RULING:
(1)
YES.
While the complaint is captioned Collection of Sum of Money with
Damages, the allegations therein show that respondents action is for
ejectment. All ejectment cases are within the jurisdiction of the MTC.
Hence, the RTC of Baguio has no jurisdiction over the case.
While an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and non
appeallable, however, if the denial is without or in excess of
jurisdiction, certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies from such
order of denial.
In Time, Inc. v. Reyes, this Court, speaking through Justice J.B. L.
Reyes, held: The motion to dismiss was predicated on the respondent
courts lack of jurisdiction to entertain the action; and the rulings of
this Court are that writs of certiorari or prohibition, or both, may issue
in case of a denial or deferment of an action or on the basis of a
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Verily, the writ of certiorari is granted to keep an inferior court within
the bounds of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
(2)
YES.
The Supreme Court cannot go along with respondents contention that
petitioner should have first filed a motion for reconsideration before
resorting to the remedy of certiorari. While the rule is that before
certiorari may be availed of, petitioner must first file a motion for
reconsideration with the lower court of the act or order complained
of, however, such rule is not without exception.
The SC have, in several instances, dispensed with the filing of a motion
for reconsideration of a lower courts ruling, such as:
a. where the proceedings in which the error occurred is a patent
nullity;
b. where the question is purely of law;
c. when public interest is involved;
d. where judicial intervention is urgent or its application may cause
great and irreparable damage; and
e. where the court a quo has no jurisdiction, as in this case
Caloocan City. The three parcels are covered by TCT Nos. 53066-A, 53067
and 53068, all derived from TCT No. 71357 issued by the Register of Deeds
of Caloocan City. Twenty-four (24) squatter families live in these lots.
President Marcos issued Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1315expropriating
forty (40) hectares of land in Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City, covered by TCT
Nos. 70298, and 73960, and portions of TCT Nos. 71357, 2017 and 2018.
The land expropriated was identified in the decree as a slum area that
required the upgrading of basic facilities and services and the disposal of the
lots to their bona fide occupants in accordance with the national Slum
Improvement and Resettlement (SIR) Program and the Metro Manila Zonal
Improvement Program (ZIP).It set aside P40 million as the maximum
amount of just compensation to be paid the landowners.
The NHA, as the decrees designated administrator for the national
government, undertook the implementation of P.D. 1315 in 7 phases called
the Bagong Barrio Project (BBP). The properties covered by Phases 1 to 6
were acquired in 1978 and 1979. BBP Phase 7, which includes petitioners
land, was not among those acquired and paid for in 1978-1979.
Proclamation No. 1893 declared the entire Metropolitan Manila area as Urban
Land Reform Zone. Proclamation No. 1893 was amended by Proclamation
No. 1967 which identified 244 sites in Metropolitan Manila as Areas for
Priority Development and Urban Land Reform Zones.
P.D. No. 1396 created the Department of Human Settlements (DHS) and
placed the NHA under the supervision of said Department.Executive Order
No. 648 transferred the regulatory functions of the NHA to the Human
Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC), a quasi-judicial body attached
to the DHS.
Petitioner wrote the HSRC seeking a declaration of non-coverage from the
Urban Land Reform Program of the government. HSRC Commissioner
Raymundo R. Dizon, Jr. issued a certificate declaring petitioners lots "outside
the declared Urban Land Reform Zone."
With this certificate, petitioner asked the NHA to relocate the squatters on
his land. Acting on the request, General Gaudencio Tobias, NHA General
Manager, sent a letter to Mayor MacarioAsistio, Jr., of Caloocan City, to
conduct a census of the families occupying petitioners lots.
The NHA called the squatters for a dialogue "to look into the possibility of
amicably settling the eviction problem and/or to find out why a clearance
should be issued or not for the removal/ demolition of all the illegal
structures in the said property."The squatters did not attend the meeting. In
view of their failure to attend, Joaquin Castano, Acting Division Manager,
Resettlement Division, NHA, wrote a memorandum to the Department
Manager, Resettlement Department, NHA, recommending the issuance of a
demolition clearance.
NHA General Manager Tobias granted clearance to dismantle and remove all
illegal structures on petitioners property within three (3) months from
receipt of the order. Clearance was also granted for the relocation of the 24
families to the SapangPalay Resettlement Project.
The demolition did not take place. In a letter dated September 16, 1982,
General Tobias inquired from Mayor Asistio whether Caloocan City had plans
of developing petitioners properties in the Bagong Barrio Project. Mayor
Asistio replied that "considering the said properties are private in character,
the City has no plans presently or in the immediate future to develop or
underwrite the development of said properties."
BBP Phase 7 was listed as among the priority projects for implementation
under the governments Community Self-Help Program.The NHA, through
General Tobias, approved an emergency fund of P2 million for the acquisition
of petitioners lots. NHA started negotiations with petitioner. Petitioner,
through an authorized representative, made an initial offer of P200.00 per
square meter. The NHA made a counter-offer of P175.00 per square meter.
Petitioner increased his price to P1,000.00 and later to P3,000.00. NHA
General Manager Raymundo R. Dizon, Jr. informed petitioner that NHAs
maximum offer was P500.00. This was rejected by petitioner, through his
lawyer.
Petitioner, through counsel, requested for a revalidation of his demolition
clearance and relocation of the squatters.
NHA General Manager Monico Jacob revalidated the demolition clearance and
informed Mayor Asistio that the NHA was making available enough serviced
home lots in BagongSilang Resettlement Project for the 24 families.
Respondent Annabelle Carangdang, NHA Project Manager in Bagong Barrio,
refused to implement the clearance to eject the squatters on petitioners
land. Carangdang claimed that petitioners land had already been declared
expropriated by P.D. 1315.
Petitioner then filed with the respondent Court of Appeals a "Petition for
Prohibition
and
Mandamus with
Declaration
as
Inexistent
and
Unconstitutional Presidential Decree No. 1315" against the NHA and
Carangdang.
The respondent Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and held that
petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of the decrees
constitutionality.Petitioners motion for reconsideration was also denied.
Issue: Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of prohibition. Whether
the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus
Held: Petitioner is not entitled to the writ of prohibition. Section 2 of Rule 65
provides:
"Sec. 2. Petition for prohibition. When the proceedings of any tribunal,
corporation, board, or person, whether exercising functions judicial or
ministerial, are without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a
verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and
praying that judgment be rendered commanding the defendant
to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein.
x xx."
Prohibition is a preventive remedy.It seeks for a judgment ordering the
defendant to desist from continuing with the commission of an act perceived
to be illegal.
In the case at bar, petitioner does not pray that respondent Carangdang
should be ordered to desist from relocating the squatters. What petitioner
challenges is respondent Carangdangs refusal to implement the demolition
clearance issued by her administrative superiors. The remedy for a refusal to
discharge a legal duty is mandamus, not prohibition.
The petitioner is not also entitled to a writ of mandamus. Section 3, Rule 65
provides:
"Sec. 3. Petition for mandamus. When any tribunal, corporation, board, or
person, unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or
unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office
to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved
thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the
defendant, immediately or at some other specified time, to do the act
required to be done to protect the rights of petitioner, and to pay the