ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 145039. January 17, 2001]

AURORA B. DAGUMAN vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 17 2001.

G.R. No. 145039 (Aurora B. Daguman vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)

Petitioner Aurora Daguman through a petition for review on certiorari seeks to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 45983 dated 14 September 2000.

As antecedents, respondent spouses Rodolfo and Elizabeth Lalog filed a complaint against herein petitioner for declaration of ownership and quieting of title over a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 43216. Instead of filing her answer in Civil Case No. 94-3048, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The motion was denied in an Order of 15 March 1995. Petitioner filed another motion to dismiss raising the ground of litis pendentia. This too was denied in an Order dated 22 September 1997.

Petitioner then questioned the denial of her motions to dismiss before the Court of Appeals. The CA denied the petition in the decision assailed before this Court.

We find no merit in the petition.

Time and again this Court has pronounced that an order denying a motion to dismiss is only interlocutory which is neither appealable until final judgment, nor could it be generally assailed on certiorari. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to file an answer pursuant to Sec. 4, Rule 16, and interpose the defenses raised in his motion to dismiss, proceed to trial, and in case of adverse decision, elevate the whole case by appeal in due time.

This Court likewise notes that on 30 March 2000, the Regional Trial Court Branch 275 has already rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 94-3048, hence the present petition, which questions the denial of petitioner's motion to dismiss in said case is already moot.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE