Venturillo v. Quitain
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the property rights of the Heirs of Spouses Luciano and Consolacion Venturillo over a 678-square meter lot in Poblacion, Davao City, which they have occupied and paid taxes on since 1942. The Spouses Venturillo erected a house on the lot and raised eleven children there. The City Engineer's office later issued a Notice of Order of Removal and informed the petitioners that the area was a road right-of-way, despite the petitioners having filed a sales application with the DENR and receiving a favorable inspection report from the City Engineer's office. 2. Procedural History: The Heirs of Venturillo filed a petition for mandamus with a prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction against the City Engineer with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City. The TRO was granted, but a subsequent hearing for the preliminary injunction was cancelled. The RTC eventually denied the preliminary injunction and dismissed the petition. The Heirs of Venturillo then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the RTC gravely abused its discretion by dismissing their case without ruling on their exhibits or waiting for the City Engineer's comment or answer. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, the Heirs of Venturillo, seek a reversal of the RTC's order through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. They contend that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing their petition for mandamus and denying their prayer for injunctive relief without properly considering their evidence or allowing the respondent to fully respond. They argue that they have a right to the building permit and to maintain their possession, as they have occupied the land with the tacit consent of the City Government and have complied with all requirements for the permit. The Supreme Court, while noting procedural deficiencies such as the failure to file a motion for reconsideration and the direct resort to the Supreme Court, chose to review the merits of the case.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for mandamus and denying the prayer for injunctive relief. Whether the petitioners have a legal right to demand the issuance of a building permit.
Ruling
The Supreme Court annulled and set aside the Order dated April 22, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 15. The case was remanded for reception of additional evidence and resolution of the issues. The parties were directed to maintain the status quo.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural issues and grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that the Heirs of Venturillo failed to exhaust available remedies. They received the assailed Order on April 25, 2003, and had 15 days to file an appeal to the Court of Appeals or a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court. Instead, they filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 on May 12, 2003, which is impermissible as a substitute for a lost or lapsed remedy of appeal. Furthermore, they failed to file a motion for reconsideration with the trial court, which is a condition precedent for a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as it deprives the lower court of the opportunity to correct errors. The Court also noted the disregard for the hierarchy of courts by directly filing with the Supreme Court when the Court of Appeals has concurrent jurisdiction. However, in view of substantial justice, the Court opted to receive the merits of the case. On the substantive issue of the right to a building permit: The Court acknowledged that the Heirs of Venturillo had continuously possessed and occupied the land since 1942 with the tacit consent and authorization of the City Government, evidenced by their compliance with tax declaration and payment directives. Citing Estate of Gregoria Francisco v. Court of Appeals, the Court stated that by virtue of the City Government's tacit consent, the Heirs of Venturillo were in lawful possession of the property and the house, not as squatters. The issuance of a building permit is considered a ministerial duty when the application and plans conform to all requirements of the National Building Code. The Heirs of Venturillo appeared to have complied with these requirements. However, the refusal to issue the permit was based on the fact that the structure stood on a proposed road right-of-way. The Court found that the actual ownership of the land (National Government vs. City Government) was uncertain, which prevented a final adjudication. If owned by the National Government, the City would need authority to use it as a road. If owned by the City, its right to use it as a street extension and withhold a permit would be clear. Due to these factual considerations and inadequate records, the Court could not definitively resolve the rights of the parties and remanded the case for further reception of evidence.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be used as a substitute for a lost or lapsed remedy of appeal, nor can it be used to circumvent the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration before the trial court, unless substantial justice dictates otherwise. Furthermore, the hierarchy of courts must be observed when filing such petitions.