Abedes v. Arciga
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Relia Quizon Arciga filed a case against Wilfredo P. Abedes, husband of petitioner Emelinda V. Abedes, seeking support for their daughter, Danielle Ann Arciga. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City declared Wilfredo the natural father and ordered him to pay P10,000.00 monthly support, retroactive to May 1996. This judgment became final and executory. A writ of execution was issued, but no personal property of Wilfredo could be levied. Subsequently, a Notice of Levy on Execution was registered on Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 292139, allegedly registered in Wilfredo's name, to satisfy the judgment. Procedural History: Petitioner Emelinda V. Abedes filed a Third Party Claim, asserting exclusive ownership of the property covered by TCT No. 292139. Despite this, a Notice of Sheriff's Sale was issued. Petitioner then filed a Complaint for Injunction with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and TRO before the RTC of Tarlac City, seeking to stop the sale and cancel the annotations on the title. The RTC granted the TRO and later the preliminary injunction. Respondents moved to dismiss, which the RTC denied. The RTC subsequently ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring the property as paraphernal and not liable for Wilfredo's obligations. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the property was conjugal and liable for Danielle Ann's support. Petitioner sought reconsideration, arguing the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over pure questions of law, but this was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution. Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in taking cognizance of the appeal, as it allegedly involved only questions of law, which should have been appealed directly to the Supreme Court under Rule 45. The Supreme Court found that the appeal to the Court of Appeals involved mixed questions of fact and law, and that petitioner had an adequate remedy via an ordinary appeal under Rule 45, rendering the Rule 65 certiorari petition improper and thus dismissed the petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court should entertain a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 when an ordinary appeal under Rule 45 was available. Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the appeal filed by the respondents, considering the nature of the issues raised. Whether the petitioner is estopped from questioning the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction after actively participating in the appellate proceedings. Whether the property covered by TCT No. 292139 is paraphernal or conjugal property. Whether the conjugal partnership is liable for the support of an illegitimate child.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for an appeal under Rule 45. Since an appeal was available, speedy, and adequate, certiorari was improper. The Court also found that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the appeal as it involved mixed questions of fact and law, and petitioner was estopped from questioning jurisdiction after participating in the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Propriety of Certiorari under Rule 65: The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is only proper when a tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. An ordinary appeal under Rule 45 is the proper remedy from decisions of the Court of Appeals. In this case, petitioner received the Resolution denying her motion for reconsideration on August 2, 2005, and had until August 17, 2005, to file an appeal under Rule 45. Instead, she filed a petition for certiorari, which is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The Court emphasized that Rule 45 provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court from decisions of the Court of Appeals, regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, and that failure to file within the reglementary period renders the decision final and executory. On the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals: The Court found that the appeal to the Court of Appeals involved mixed questions of fact and law, thus falling within its jurisdiction. The determination of whether the property covered by TCT No. 292139 was paraphernal or conjugal was a question of fact, requiring the appellate court to review evidence. The applicable law governing the property relations of the spouses, especially considering the marriage predated the Family Code but the property was acquired during its effectivity, also presented a question of law. Therefore, the appeal was properly filed with the Court of Appeals under Rule 41, which allows appeals to the Court of Appeals from RTC decisions in the exercise of original jurisdiction on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. On Estoppel: The Court noted that petitioner actively participated in the proceedings before the Court of Appeals, even filing an appellee's brief and praying for the dismissal of the appeal and affirmance of the RTC decision. This active participation, the Court held, rendered her subsequent claim of lack of jurisdiction inconsistent and estopped her from questioning the appellate court's jurisdiction. While not strictly a case of estoppel by jurisdiction, her conduct demonstrated an acknowledgment of the appellate court's power to hear and resolve the issues presented. On the Merits of the Case (Property Classification): Although the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds, the Court briefly touched upon the merits. It affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that the property, acquired during the marriage, is presumed conjugal under the Family Code. On the Merits of the Case (Support of Illegitimate Child): The Court also noted that the Family Code provisions allow for the support of illegitimate children to be charged against the conjugal partnership, contrary to the RTC's ruling based on the Civil Code. However, the Court clarified that it would not delve further into the merits as the issues were not properly raised in the petition and had been laid to rest by the Court of Appeals' decision.
Main Doctrine
A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for an ordinary appeal under Rule 45. Where an appeal is available, speedy, and adequate, certiorari will not lie. Furthermore, a party who actively participates in appellate proceedings cannot later question the appellate court's jurisdiction.