Alon v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a property boundary disagreement between petitioners Bayani Alon and the Spouses Norberto and Severina Redilla-Villamil, and respondent Juanito Agravio. The petitioners own Lot 828-A, while respondent Agravio purchased Lot 2162-B. Agravio alleged that the petitioners' houses encroached upon his property, Lot 2162-B, and demanded they vacate. The petitioners countered that Agravio's claimed property was a road lot. Despite attempts at amicable settlement through the barangay, no resolution was reached. Procedural History: Respondent Agravio initiated a civil case (No. B-3431) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Biñan, Laguna, seeking relocation of the lots and damages. The parties agreed to a relocation survey by a government surveyor and to abide by its findings. Engr. Andres L. Valencia conducted the survey, and his report indicated a potential encroachment. The RTC, after allowing some cross-examination but denying further evidence from the petitioners, rendered a summary judgment in favor of Agravio, ordering the demolition of encroaching structures and payment of damages. The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. They filed a notice of appeal, which the RTC rejected as untimely. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking to reverse the RTC's decision and compel the reception of their evidence. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that the appeal was lost due to untimeliness and that any errors in the summary judgment were errors of judgment, not correctible by certiorari. The Petition: The petitioners seek review of the CA's decision via a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They argue that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's rejection of their notice of appeal, contending there was no factual basis for the finding that their appeal was out of time. They further assert that the RTC's summary judgment was issued in excess of jurisdiction, that they were denied due process, and that the CA erred in upholding the summary judgment and the doctrine of estoppel against them. The petitioners claim the RTC denied them the opportunity to present evidence to controvert the surveyor's report, which they allege contains errors and was not properly approved. They maintain that genuine factual issues existed, precluding a summary judgment, and that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Order of the trial court rejecting the petitioners' notice of appeal and dismissing their appeal. Whether the errors, if any, of the trial court in its summary judgment are errors of judgment correctible by appeal, not by certiorari.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED DUE COURSE. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the rejected notice of appeal: The Court affirmed the trial court's rejection of the notice of appeal, holding that the petitioners failed to perfect their appeal within the reglementary period. Under Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, a party has fifteen (15) days to file a notice of appeal from receipt of the trial court's decision. This period is mandatory and jurisdictional. The right to appeal is a statutory remedy, not a natural right, and must be exercised within the prescribed legal framework. Failure to perfect an appeal within the statutory period renders the decision final and executory, precluding any court from exercising appellate jurisdiction. In this case, while the exact date of receipt of the decision by petitioners' counsel was not clearly established due to a missing registry return card, the petitioners' motion for reconsideration filed on March 4, 1996, admitted receipt of the decision in "February 1996." This admission, coupled with the lack of proof of timely perfection of the appeal, supported the trial court's conclusion that the appeal was filed out of time. The petitioners bore the burden of proving timely perfection, which they failed to discharge. On the issue of certiorari as a substitute for appeal and the nature of the alleged errors: The Court reiterated the well-entrenched rule that a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost right of appeal, particularly when the loss is attributable to the party's own negligence. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive. The existence of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appeal bars the availment of certiorari. In this case, the petitioners lost their right to appeal due to their failure to file within the reglementary period. Resorting to a petition for certiorari to assail the summary judgment after failing to appeal was improper. The Court found that the petitioners purposely concealed the exact date of receipt of the decision to prevent the discovery of their failure to perfect their appeal, thereby attempting to circumvent the finality of the judgment. The Court held that the alleged errors attributed by the petitioners to the trial court, such as the denial of their right to adduce evidence and the rendition of a summary judgment, were mere errors of judgment, not errors of jurisdiction. As long as a court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion are considered errors of judgment, which are correctible by an ordinary appeal and not by a special civil action for certiorari. The trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, and its rulings, even if erroneous, did not amount to grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction that would warrant the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari is not a substitute for the lost right of appeal, especially when the loss is due to negligence. Errors of judgment are not correctible by certiorari; only errors of jurisdiction are.