ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 124789. November 20, 2000]

ANTONIO S. FORMOSO vs. RTC BR. 24 CABUGAO, ILOCOS SUR, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 20 2000.

G.R. No. 124789 (Antonio S. Formoso vs. Regional Trial Court Branch 24 Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, Eduardo Alcantara, Antonio Lahoz and Caridad Aguila.)

For the Court's consideration via a petition for review on certiorari are the orders of the Regional Trial Court, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, dismissing the case below (Civil Case No. 438-KC entitled "Antonio S. Formoso vs. Eduardo Alcantara, et al.,") and denying reconsideration of said dismissal. ¹ Rollo , p. 23-33.

On October 26, 1995, Antonio Formoso filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Ilocos Sur, Cabugao and action for annulment of sale, recovery of ownership with preliminary mandatory injunction and damages, involving two parcels of land registered in the name of "Estelita Formoso, married to Antonio S. Formoso, of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, Philippines, as owner thereof in fee simple." ² Trial Court Order, Rollo, p. 6.Plaintiff alleged that he was the rightful owner of the parcels of land involved.

On the other hand, defendants Eduardo Alcantara and Antonio Lahoz, averred that Antonio Formoso was not the real party in interest or did not have legal personality to file the suit because the land in question was the paraphernal property of his wife Estelita Formoso. Thus, plaintiff Antonio Formoso had no cause of action against defendants.

On March 14, 1996, the trial court issued the assailed order, ³ Trial Court Order, Rollo, pp. 6-9.dismissing the case upon a finding that the subject parcels of land were owned exclusively by Estelita Formoso, who was not impleaded in the action as real party in interest. The trial court also denied reconsideration of the order of dismissal. ⁴ Trial Court Order dated April 30, 1996, Rollo, p. 39.

Hence, this petition.

We dismiss the petition. The proper remedy was an appeal from the order of dismissal, which was appealable as a final order or disposition of the case.

The rule is well-settled that a petition for review on certiorari is not a substitute for lost appeal. What is more, petitioner's recourse is a petition with the Court of Appeals, considering the factual issues involved.

WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petition.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE