Tayag v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Emilie Dayrit Cuyugan, as mother and legal guardian of minor Chad Cuyugan, filed a "Claim for Inheritance" against Corito Ocampo Tayag, administratrix of the estate of the late Atty. Ricardo Ocampo. Cuyugan alleged that Chad was the illegitimate son of Atty. Ocampo, born on October 5, 1980, and that Atty. Ocampo had showered Chad with affection and expressed intent to recognize him and make him an heir. The complaint sought an inventory and accounting of the estate, delivery of Chad's inheritance share, and support pendente lite. Procedural History: Tayag filed a motion to dismiss, asserting affirmative defenses including lack of cause of action, prematurity, prescription, lack of legal personality, lack of jurisdiction, and improper joinder of causes of action. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion to dismiss, holding that further proceedings were needed to adduce evidence and set the case for pre-trial. Tayag's motion for reconsideration was also denied. Tayag then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA), which initially enjoined the RTC to resolve the motion to dismiss. Subsequently, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss again, finding the complaint sufficient in form and substance. Tayag's motion for reconsideration of this denial was also denied. Tayag filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA, praying for the annulment of the RTC's orders. The CA dismissed this petition, ruling that the denial of the motion to dismiss was an interlocutory order not subject to certiorari. Tayag's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner Tayag seeks to reverse the CA's decision, arguing that the CA disregarded exceptions to the rule against certiorari for interlocutory orders, refused to resolve substantive issues regarding the interpretation and application of Articles 281 and 285 of the Civil Code and Article 175 of the Family Code concerning recognition and prescription, and sanctioned a departure from usual judicial proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and prohibition on the ground that the denial of the motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order. Whether the action to claim inheritance filed by the private respondent is premature and states no cause of action. Whether the action to compel recognition of the minor child has prescribed, considering the applicability of Article 285 of the Civil Code versus Article 175 of the Family Code and the effect of the Family Code's retroactive application.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the petition for certiorari: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the denial of a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order and, as a general rule, cannot be the subject of a special civil action for certiorari. The exceptions to this rule, which petitioner invoked, were found to be not present in this case. The Court reiterated that ordinary appeal in due time is the proper remedy for such denials. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition on this procedural ground. On the prematurity and cause of action: The Court held that an action to claim inheritance may be joined with an action to compel recognition. The allegations in the complaint, including the purported evidence of affection and intent to recognize, were deemed sufficient to establish a cause of action for both compelling recognition and claiming inheritance. The Court cited Briz v. Briz, et al. to support the principle that a complex action to compel recognition and obtain ulterior relief as an heir is permissible if the conditions for joinder are met. Thus, the complaint was not considered premature. On prescription: The Court addressed the conflicting provisions of Article 285 of the Civil Code and Article 175 of the Family Code regarding the prescriptive period for actions to establish filiation and compel recognition. It was determined that the Family Code has retroactive effect only insofar as it does not prejudice vested or acquired rights. In this case, the filing of the complaint under the Civil Code regime prior to the effectivity of the Family Code vested the minor child's right of action. Therefore, Article 285 of the Civil Code, which allows the action to be filed within four years from attainment of majority if the parent died during the child's minority, was applied. Consequently, the action was not deemed to have prescribed.
Main Doctrine
The denial of a motion to dismiss based on affirmative defenses is an interlocutory order and generally not subject to a petition for certiorari, unless exceptions apply. Furthermore, an action to compel recognition and claim inheritance may be joined, and the prescriptive period is governed by the law in effect at the time the action was filed, respecting vested rights.