ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 147688. July 10, 2006]

SOFIA VILLANUEVA VDA. DE PERALTA versus JULIA PORRAS-GALLARDO

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JULY 10, 2006 .

G.R. No. 147688 (Sofia Villanueva Vda. de Peralta versus Julia Porras-Gallardo)

Before us is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the Resolutions dated February 22, 2000 [1] cralaw and February 22, 2001, [2] cralaw of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 56518.

Respondent is the registered owner-possessor of Lot No. 114 with an area of 1,204 square meters located in Poblacion Ilaya, Dao, Capiz. On March 15, 1994, respondent filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Dao-lvisan, Capiz, a complaint for ejectment against herein petitioner's sister, Alicia Villanueva-Apines, and the latter's husband, Wilson Apines. [3] cralaw

In said complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 205, respondent alleged that she allowed the spouses Apines to stay on a portion of the land because the latter promised to buy it within two years. But the spouses Apines did not make good their promise; failed to pay the purchase price, then refused to vacate the land despite demand.

In their answer, the spouses Apines denied the material allegations in the complaint. They alleged that the property was owned by Julian Villanueva, Alicia's grandfather, and was inherited by her and several other co-owners after his death. They further alleged that the property had been in the possession of Alicia's family for more than 50 years and that respondent fraudulently obtained title to the lot. [4] cralaw

On May 24, 1999, the MCTC dismissed the complaint on the ground that the spouses Apines had proven a better right to possession. [5] cralaw It also appears from the records that respondent had also filed with the same court an ejectment complaint against petitioner, who occupied another portion of the land. [6] cralaw The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 211, contained similar averments as the complaint against the spouses Apines and was met with the same denial and defense by petitioner. [7] cralaw This case was likewise dismissed by the MCTC in a separate, but similarly worded, decision rendered on the same date. [8] cralaw

Respondent appealed the two decisions to the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City. Both cases were raffled to Branch 16 of said court, which docketed the two cases as Civil Case Nos. V-7331 and V-7332.

On November 23, 1999, the RTC rendered a joint decision in the two cases. [9] cralaw It reversed the MCTC and ordered petitioner and the spouses Apines to buy from respondent the portions of Lot 114 they respectively occupied, or vacate the lot within 30 days.

On January 3, 2000, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. [10] cralaw The petition was raffled to the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals which docketed the petition as CA-G.R. SP. No. 56518.

On the same day of January 3, 2000, the spouses Apines also elevated the decision to the Court of Appeals via petition for review, which was in all respects identical to the other petition. [11] cralaw Their petition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 56519, was decided by the Nineteenth Division of the Court of Appeals on June 3, 2004. The appellate court affirmed the RTC decision in all respects except the portion allowing the purchase of the land within 30 days. Entry of judgment was made on July 27, 2005.

In the meantime, petitioner's appeal had been dismissed by the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals on February 22, 2000. The Fourth Division ruled that the petition failed to comply with Section 3, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court [12] cralaw for failure of petitioner to attach the registry receipt to the petition. [13] cralaw

Aggrieved, petitioner sought reconsideration of the dismissal. She explained that since respondent was represented by Atty. Rizal Recio in both cases, her counsel, Atty. Fredicindo A. Talabucon, who also represented the spouses Apines, placed copies of the petitions for review in only one envelope and mailed it to Atty. Recio. Because of this, only one registry receipt was issued by the post office. Said receipt was attached to her sister's petition for review, that is, in the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 56519. [14] cralaw

The motion for reconsideration was denied on February 22, 2001. [15] cralaw Hence, this instant petition.

Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion when it dismissed the petition for review of petitioner in CA-G.R. SP. No. 56518. [16] cralaw

For her part, respondent contends that the instant petition is a mere substitute for a denied appeal and should be dismissed for being the wrong remedy. [17] cralaw

We rule in favor of the respondent.

Under Section 3, Rule 42, governing petitions for review from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals, the failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. Section 13, Rule 13 [18] cralaw provides that if service is made by registered mail, as in this case, proof of service shall be made by an affidavit of service and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office.

Following the clear provisions of the Rules of Court, in this case the Court of Appeals neither exceeded its jurisdiction nor acted with grave abuse of discretion. "Grave abuse of discretion," under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, has a specific meaning. It is the arbitrary or despotic exercise of power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law. For an act to be struck down as having been done with grave abuse of discretion, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross. [19] cralaw But we find that such is not the case here.

The error that could be attributed in this case to the Court of Appeals is an error of judgment committed in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and such cannot be the subject of a petition for certiorari. The writ of certiorari is available only to correct errors of jurisdiction. It is a prerogative writ, not demandable as a matter of right, but only in the exercise of this Court's judicial discretion. [20] cralaw It can be availed of only when a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Absent grave abuse of discretion, errors which a court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction are mere errors of judgment which are reviewable by appeal. [21] cralaw Thus, petitioner should have instead availed of the remedy of appeal, which was then still available at the time of the filing of this petition. Resort to a petition for certiorari by herein petitioner was a wrong remedy. And we hold that the appellate court did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's petition for review.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is DISMISSED.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 104-101. Penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Fermin A. Martin, Jr., and Romeo A. Brawner concurring.

[2] cralaw Id. at 112.

[3] cralaw Id. at 42-46.

[4] cralaw Id. at 47-51.

[5] cralaw Id. at 52-65.

[6] cralaw Id. at 20-23.

[7] cralaw Id. at 25-27.

[8] cralaw Id. at 28-41.

[9] cralaw Id. at 66-77.

[10] cralaw Id. at 78-88.

[11] cralaw Id. at 90-100.

[12] cralaw SEC. 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements.-The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.

[13] cralaw Rollo, pp. 104-105.

[14] cralaw Id. at 106-107.

[15] cralaw Id. at 112-113.

[16] cralaw Id. at 16.

[17] cralaw Id. at 116.

[18] cralaw SEC. 13. Proof of Service.- Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the party served, or the official return of the server, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing a full statement of the date, place and manner of service. If the service is by ordinary mail, proof thereof shall consist of an affidavit of the person mailing of facts showing compliance with section 7 of this Rule. If service is made by registered mail, proof shall be made by such affidavit and the registry receipt issued by the mailing office. The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon its receipt by the sender, or in lieu thereof of the unclaimed letter together with the certified or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster to the addressee.

[19] cralaw People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 158780-82, October 12, 2004, 440 SCRA 206, 212.

[20] cralaw Cervantes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 166755, November 18, 2005, 475 SCRA 562, 570.

[21] cralaw Herrera v. Barretto and Joaquin, 25 Phil. 245, 271 (1913).


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com