ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 146266.February 21, 2001]

SUMULONG vs. HON.CABALLES et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 21 2001.

G.R. No. 146266(Aniceto L. Sumulong vs. Fortunato Sumulong, Hon. Felix S. Caballes, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC, Antipolo City, Branch 71, et al.)

On April 30, 1997, respondent Fortunato Sumulong filed an application for registration of a parcel of land (Lot 3627, Cad-29 Ext., Case 2 of the Antipolo Cadastre) which was raffled to Branch 71 of the Regional Trial Court in Antipolo City. Respondent alleged that the land has an assessed value of P50,860.00.

Pursuant to R.A. No. 7691, �34, authorizing the delegation of jurisdiction in cadastral and land registration cases to Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts if the value of the land does not exceed P100.000.00, the case was subsequently assigned to Branch 1 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Antipolo City where it was docketed as LRC No. 97-005. As no opposition had been filed within the reglementary period, the MTCC issued an order of general default with the Republic as the lone oppositor.

Later, however, petitioner Aniceto L. Sumulong filed an Omnibus Motion to Re-open Case, to Lift Order of General Default, and to Admit Answer/Opposition, claiming that he was an occupant of the lot in question, and that this fact was suppressed by respondent Fortunato Sumulong in his application. Petitioner's motion was, however, denied by the MTCC in its order of January 28, 1999 for lack of merit. On May 4, 1999, the MTCC likewise denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, but on October 21, 1999, his petition was dismissed. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and later a supplemental motion for reconsideration in which he claimed that the market value of the land was P254,320.00 and therefore the case was beyond the jurisdiction of the MTCC. However, both motions were denied by the RTC in its order dated March 3, 2000.

On April 10, 2000, petitioner filed a notice of appeal ad cautelam. In addition, on May 22, 2000, he filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals assailing the orders dated October 21, 1999 and March 3, 2000 of the RTC. His petition for certiorari, however, was denied for being insufficient in form and substance and for not being the appropriate remedy. The Court of Appeals ruled that "the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative nor successive. Besides, forum shopping is not looked upon with favor." The Court of Appeals subsequently denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Hence this petition. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing his petition for certiorari for being the wrong remedy.

Considering the foregoing, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the petition for failure to show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error.

In filing both an appeal and a petition for certiorari from the same orders of the RTC, petitioner committed a "classic case of forum shopping" (Collado vs. Hernando. 161 SCRA 639 (1988)). Indeed, certiorari lies only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law (Government Service Insurance System vs. Olisa, 304 SCRA 421 (1999)). In this case, petitioner has in fact already brought an appeal. In connection with this appeal, petitioner can also have recourse to ancillary remedies, such as a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the registration proceedings in the MTCC, instead of resorting to the special civil action of certiorari. In addition, the issue of the MTCC's jurisdiction over respondent Fortunato Sumulong's application for registration can be resolved in said appeal.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE