ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 134366.� August 24, 2005]
JIMENEZ vs. DIMSON
THIRD DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 24 2005.
G.R. No. 134366 (REBECCA A. JIMENEZ vs. ROQUETA R. DIMSON, FELICIDAD R. ORONCE and ROSITA L. FLAMINIANO.)
For our resolution is the instant petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse the Decision dated December 3, 1997 and Resolution dated June 15, 1998 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 40322.
On April 10, 1995, the above-named respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 125, Caloocan City, a complaint for cancellation of petitioner's Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 23695, 23660 and 23661 of the Registry of Deeds, same city, docketed as Civil Case No. C-16871. Respondents alleged in their complaint that these titles were derived from Original certificate of Title (OCT) No. 997; that in Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System vs. Court of Appeals, [1] cralaw this Court ruled that OCT No. 997 is void; and that since OCT No. 997 is void, it follows that TCT Nos. 23695, 23660, and 23661 are likewise void.
On August 10, 1995, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of prescription and laches.
On November 3, 1995, the trial court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss for lack of merit.
Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration but this was also denied, prompting her to file with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari alleging that the trial court, in denying her motion to dismiss the complaint in Civil Case No. C-16871, acted with grave abuse of discretion.
In its Decision dated December 3, 1997, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that an order denying a motion to dismiss the complaint is interlocutory, hence, "cannot be the basis of a petition for certiorari."
A review of the records [2] cralaw shows that both parties herein admitted that they had formally offered their evidence and rested their case in Civil Case No. C-16871. Clearly, the issue of whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to dismiss has become moot and academic.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw G.R. No. 103448, November 17, 1992, 215 SCRA 783.
[2] cralaw Private respondents' comment, Rollo at 91; petitioner's reply to comment, id., at 99.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
