Liwanag v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Gliceria C. Liwanag, as special administratrix of the estate of Pio D. Liwanag, was sued by respondent Manuel Agregado in Civil Case No. 50897 for the foreclosure of a real estate mortgage constituted by the deceased. Procedural History: Petitioner moved to dismiss the foreclosure case, arguing that a special administratrix cannot be sued by a creditor of the deceased. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) to annul the RTC's order and enjoin further proceedings. The CA issued a preliminary injunction but later denied the writ of certiorari and dissolved the injunction. The Petition: Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that under Section 2, Rule 81 of the old Rules of Court, a special administrator is not liable for the debts of the deceased, thus Agregado had no cause of action against her.
Issue(s)
Whether the denial of the motion to dismiss, based on the alleged lack of cause of action against a special administratrix, is reviewable by certiorari. Whether a mortgagee can bring an action for foreclosure against the special administrator of the estate of a deceased person.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the denial of the motion to dismiss was not reviewable by certiorari and that a mortgagee can indeed pursue foreclosure against the special administrator. The appeal was dismissed with costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of reviewability by certiorari: The Court held that the alleged absence of a cause of action does not affect the respondent judge's jurisdiction to hear the foreclosure case. Therefore, the denial of the motion to dismiss, even if erroneous, is not a proper subject for a writ of certiorari. Such an error, if any, is reviewable only by appeal after a judgment on the merits has been rendered in the main case. The Court emphasized that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy reserved for correcting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and not for correcting errors of judgment. On the issue of foreclosure against a special administrator: The Court reiterated its previous ruling that a mortgagee can bring an action for foreclosure against the special administrator of the estate of a deceased person. Section 7 of Rule 86 of the New Rules of Court explicitly provides that a creditor holding a claim secured by a mortgage may pursue the remedy of foreclosing the mortgage by an action in court, making the executor or administrator a party defendant. This remedy is available to prevent the adverse effects of the statute of limitations and to avoid defeating the purpose of the mortgage, especially if the appointment of a regular administrator is delayed. The Court noted that the Rules of Court do not expressly prohibit making a special administratrix a defendant in such suits.
Main Doctrine
A special administrator may be sued by a creditor for the foreclosure of a mortgage constituted by the deceased, and the denial of a motion to dismiss on this ground, even if erroneous, is reviewable by appeal after judgment on the merits, not by certiorari.