Abadilla v. Hofileña-Europa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, Spouses Maximo and Engracia Abadilla, filed a complaint for forcible entry and damages against respondents, alleging that the latter, led by Marcelina Cario and associated with Iñigo Estate, unlawfully entered and occupied a 300-square meter portion of their property (Lot 211-A-6) on June 26, 1997, constructing a fence and depriving petitioners of possession. Petitioners claimed ownership and possession under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-71229 and demanded the respondents vacate. Procedural History: The case originated with the petitioners' complaint filed with the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC), Davao City, Branch 2. During preliminary proceedings, the parties agreed to have court-appointed commissioners conduct surveys to determine property boundaries. The surveys revealed an overlap of 592.68 square meters between the parties' lots due to discrepancies in technical descriptions. Consequently, the MTCC dismissed the complaint, ruling that the case involved a boundary dispute beyond its jurisdiction. The petitioners appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which affirmed the MTCC's decision, also concluding it was a boundary dispute. The RTC's denial of the petitioners' motion for reconsideration led to the present petition. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC's decision and order. They argued that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by affirming the MTCC's finding that the case was a boundary dispute, rather than forcible entry, and by considering the commissioner's report as binding. Petitioners also contended that the RTC erred in suggesting title correction and in dismissing their appeal. They sought to have the RTC's rulings reversed and annulled.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court can entertain a petition for certiorari when an appeal was the proper remedy and was not filed within the reglementary period. Whether the Supreme Court can entertain a petition for certiorari that violates the principle of hierarchy of courts. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the MTCC's dismissal of the forcible entry case due to a perceived boundary dispute.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that a petition for certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. Furthermore, the petition violated the principle of hierarchy of courts. The assailed RTC ruling had attained finality due to the failure to file an appeal, thus the Supreme Court lost jurisdiction to review the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the availability of certiorari as a remedy and the finality of the RTC ruling: The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy of last resort, available only when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, the petitioners had a remedy of appeal to the Court of Appeals from the RTC's decision rendered in its appellate jurisdiction. By failing to file the petition for review within the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period, the petitioners effectively lost their right to appeal. Certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal or any other adequate remedy, as these remedies are mutually exclusive. The petitioners' attempt to use certiorari to revive a lapsed appeal is contrary to established jurisprudence. The petitioners received the RTC Order denying their motion for reconsideration on November 3, 2000. Under the Rules of Court, they had fifteen (15) days to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which would have been until November 18, 2000. However, they failed to file any appeal. Instead, they filed the instant petition for certiorari on January 2, 2001, long after the reglementary period for appeal had expired. Well-settled is the rule that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be availed of to substitute for a lost appeal. When a decision becomes final and executory, the court loses jurisdiction over the case, and not even an appellate court can review the said judgment. This principle ensures that litigation comes to an end and that judgments become final and enforceable. On the principle of hierarchy of courts: The Court emphasized that the choice of forum for filing a petition for certiorari is not left to the discretion of the litigant. The hierarchy of courts dictates that petitions for extraordinary writs against first-level courts should be filed with the RTC, and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs should be exercised only when absolutely necessary or when serious and important reasons exist. Filing a petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals, constitutes a disregard of this fundamental principle, which would impose upon the Court's time and cause undue delays in the adjudication of cases. On the RTC's decision: There is no ratio provided in the input for this issue. Therefore, no ratio is provided here.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. When a party fails to file an appeal within the reglementary period, the assailed ruling attains finality, and the Court loses jurisdiction to review the merits of the case.