Soneja v. Saura
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a lease contract entered into on July 1, 1995, between petitioner Filomena Soneja (lessee) and respondent Ramon Saura, Jr. (lessor) for a property in Sampaloc, Manila. The lease was for three years with a monthly rent of P5,500.00. After the lease expired in August 1998, petitioner remained in the premises without paying rent. Respondent demanded payment for accrued rentals totaling P185,280.00 and to vacate by January 31, 2001. When petitioner failed to comply, respondent filed an ejectment case. 2. Procedural History: The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in favor of the respondent in the ejectment case on December 5, 2001, ordering the petitioner to vacate and pay back rentals and attorney's fees. Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). While the appeal was pending, the RTC granted respondent's motion for execution, leading to the levy of petitioner's property in Catanduanes. Petitioner moved to lift the levy, claiming the property was a family home, but the RTC denied this motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. The RTC later dismissed petitioner's appeal for failure to file a memorandum. Petitioner then filed a petition for review under Rule 42 with the Court of Appeals (CA). Separately, she filed a Rule 65 petition with the CA challenging the RTC's denial of her motion to lift the levy. The CA dismissed the Rule 65 petition as filed beyond the reglementary period, later denying reconsideration. The CA also dismissed the Rule 42 petition, upholding the RTC's dismissal of the appeal. 3. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in upholding the RTC's denial of her motion to lift the levy on her property. She contended that the levied property in Catanduanes was her family home and thus exempt from execution under the Family Code. Petitioner claimed she was not afforded an opportunity to present evidence to substantiate this claim. The Supreme Court, however, found no merit in the petition, stating that the CA did not commit a prima facie error and that the RTC had indeed passed upon the family home issue, noting petitioner's failure to appear at hearings and file required pleadings.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in upholding the Regional Trial Court's decision denying the petitioner's motion to lift or revoke the levy on her property, which she claims is a family home. Whether the levied property in Catanduanes is exempt from execution as a family home.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not act without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion: The Court reiterated the settled rule that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper only to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. It is not a remedy for errors of judgment, which are correctible by appeal. The petitioner's argument that the CA gravely abused its discretion in affirming the denial of her motion to lift the levy without passing on the substantive issue of the family home's exemption was found to be without merit. The CA, in its assailed resolution, found no prima facie error committed by the RTC in denying the motion to lift or revoke the levy. Furthermore, the records showed that the issue of whether the levied property was a family home was indeed passed upon by the RTC. The petitioner failed to appear at the hearing for her motion to lift the levy, and despite subsequent opportunities, failed to file a reply to the opposition. The RTC denied the motion, finding that the petitioner failed to substantiate her claim that the property was a family home and noting her admission that she was not residing there but in the leased apartment, with her married son occupying the Catanduanes property. These circumstances indicate that any alleged mistake in the appraisal of the case by the lower courts would constitute errors of judgment, not jurisdiction, making certiorari an improper remedy. The petitioner's failure to pursue the proper appellate remedies, such as filing a memorandum on appeal before the RTC or insisting on the resolution of the issue in her petition for review before the CA, led to the dismissal of her case, for which she alone is to blame. Therefore, the CA's affirmation of the RTC's decision did not constitute grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of whether the levied property is exempt from execution as a family home: While the Court found that the issue of the property being a family home was passed upon by the RTC, it also noted that the petitioner failed to substantiate her claim. The RTC found, based on the petitioner's own admission, that she was not actually residing in the Catanduanes property but in the leased apartment in Manila. Her married son was occupying the property in her stead. The Family Code provisions on family homes require actual residence and occupation by the family. The petitioner's temporary sojourn in Manila, even if necessitated by her husband's demise, coupled with her son's occupation of the property, did not sufficiently establish that the property retained its character as a family home exempt from execution at the time of the levy. The failure to present sufficient evidence to establish the family home status, combined with the procedural missteps in pursuing her remedies, led to the denial of her motion to lift the levy.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is proper only to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, not mere errors of judgment. The failure to file a required memorandum on appeal, or to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period, can lead to the dismissal of the case, and such dismissal, if erroneous, constitutes an error of judgment, not jurisdiction, which cannot be corrected by certiorari.