Rizo v. Solano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents, spouses Virgilio and Cordella Delos Santos, are the registered owners of a parcel of land located at No. 95 20th Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City, evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 126396. Their title was previously contested by Andrea and Agapito Natividad in Civil Case No. Q-11775, which was dismissed by the trial court and upheld by the Court of Appeals. Procedural History: On June 19, 1978, petitioners were sent written demands to vacate the property, which they refused to do. Consequently, private respondents filed an accion publiciana (Civil Case No. Q-29366) to recover possession. The case was initially dismissed for failure to prosecute but was later set aside upon motion for reconsideration. After private respondents rested their case, petitioners were deemed to have waived their right to present evidence due to non-appearance on February 7, 1983, and the case was submitted for decision. On March 15, 1983, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a decision ordering the defendants (petitioners) to vacate the premises and pay attorney's fees. Petitioners filed a motion to set aside this decision, which was denied by the RTC on April 27, 1983. The Petition: Aggrieved, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the RTC's decision and order denying their motion to set aside. This Court issued a temporary restraining order on May 23, 1983.
Issue(s)
Whether certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to assail the proceedings and decision of the Regional Trial Court. Whether the order of the Regional Trial Court denying the motion to set aside its decision had become final and executory.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch LXXXVI dated March 15, 1983, and its order dated April 27, 1983, are affirmed. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on May 23, 1983, is lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari and prohibition: The Court held that certiorari and prohibition are available only when there is no appeal, nor any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, the order denying the motion to set aside the decision was a final order, subject to appeal pursuant to Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The remedies of appeal and special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition are antithetical, as explicitly laid down in Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Court has consistently applied this principle in numerous cases, and there was no reason to depart from it. On whether the order had become final and executory: The Court found that petitioners received the trial court's decision on March 28, 1983, and filed a motion to set it aside on April 11, 1983. They received the order denying this motion on May 3, 1983. Under the Rules of Court, they still had until May 5, 1983, within which to appeal from the order denying their motion. However, instead of filing an appeal, they filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition on May 13, 1983. Since the order dated April 27, 1983, was not appealed within the prescribed time and manner, it became final and executory. The trial court had even issued a writ of execution. Therefore, the case was beyond the scope of the power of review of any court through special civil actions.
Main Doctrine
The special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition are not proper remedies to assail a final and executory order of a trial court when an appeal was available but was not availed of within the reglementary period.