Geronimo v. Geronimo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Juanito Geronimo, Antonia Limson, and Linda Geronimo were the registered owners of a parcel of land. In 1989, their brother, Carlito Geronimo, proposed to develop the property into a resort. Petitioners, believing in the idea and noting the absence of existing resort facilities in the area, "sold" the land to Carlito and registered it in his name. Carlito did not pay any amount for the land but was designated project manager. Carlito subsequently obtained a loan from the Bank of Floridablanca, secured by a mortgage on the property. With the loan proceeds and capital infused by petitioners, Carlito developed the property into the Villa Cristina Resort, which he jointly managed with Dionisia Santos until his death on June 13, 2002. Procedural History: On February 7, 2003, petitioners filed a petition for cancellation of title against respondents, the heirs of Carlito Geronimo, in the RTC, asserting that the implied trust created between them and Carlito was extinguished upon his death. Summons could not be served at the purported address, leading the RTC to order the issuance of an alias writ of summons, requiring respondents to file an answer within 90 days from receipt or publication. Respondents received the alias writ by registered mail on September 9, 2003. They moved for and were granted several extensions to file their answer. On October 27, 2003, respondents posted their motion to dismiss, which the RTC received on November 5, 2003. Respondents contended that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons due to improper service of summons, as petitioners knew their correct address. Meanwhile, petitioners moved to declare respondents in default, which the RTC granted on February 17, 2004, ordering petitioners to present evidence ex parte. Respondents' motion for reconsideration was denied on May 12, 2004. On March 15, 2004, the RTC proceeded with the ex parte presentation of evidence, where petitioners presented Dionisia Santos and a demand letter from respondents. The RTC found that an implied trust was created and, in a decision dated May 25, 2004, nullified the sale and ordered the cancellation of Carlito's title. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari in the CA, asserting grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in declaring them in default and rendering the decision. The CA, in a decision dated May 24, 2005, granted and remanded the case, noting that respondents posted their motion to dismiss within the extension period. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied on September 20, 2005. The Petition: Petitioners filed the present recourse, asserting that the CA erred in granting for certiorari because respondents failed to move for the reconsideration of the RTC's May 25, 2004 decision before filing the certiorari petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the petition for certiorari despite the respondents' failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the Regional Trial Court's decision before filing the said petition. Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring the respondents in default and in rendering its decision.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The May 25, 2005 decision and September 20, 2005 resolution of the Court of Appeals are reversed and set aside. The February 17, 2004 and May 12, 2004 orders and May 25, 2004 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 17 are reinstated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the failure to file a motion for reconsideration: The Court reiterated the settled rule that a special civil action for certiorari can prosper only if the aggrieved party has no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. A motion for reconsideration is generally considered such a remedy, allowing the lower court an opportunity to correct its alleged errors. In this case, the respondents did not file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC's May 25, 2004 decision before filing their petition for certiorari. The Court found no justification for this omission, especially since the RTC had been lenient in granting extensions for the filing of pleadings. Therefore, the petition for certiorari should have been dismissed outright by the CA for failure to exhaust available remedies. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion: While the CA focused on the merits of the respondents' motion to dismiss and the propriety of the default order, the Supreme Court's primary ground for reversing the CA's decision was the procedural lapse of failing to file a motion for reconsideration. The Court noted that the RTC's leniency in granting extensions indicated that the assailed orders and decision were not rendered arbitrarily due to personal hostility, making a motion for reconsideration a viable and necessary step. The Court did not delve into the substantive merits of the case concerning the implied trust or the service of summons, as the procedural defect was dispositive of the certiorari petition.
Main Doctrine
A special civil action for certiorari can prosper only if the aggrieved party has no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, such as a motion for reconsideration, to allow the lower court to correct its alleged error. Failure to file a motion for reconsideration before filing a petition for certiorari, absent any valid justification, warrants the dismissal of the petition.