Tan v. Antazo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Spouses Apolinar and Genoveva Antazo filed an accion reinvindicatoria suit with damages against petitioner Ceferina Lopez Tan. The respondents alleged that petitioner had encroached upon their registered properties, specifically a 1,024-square meter lot identified as Lot No. 2190 and a 100-square meter portion of a 498-square meter lot identified as Lot 2175. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 68, Binangonan, Rizal, ruled in favor of the respondents, finding that the petitioner had encroached on 114 square meters of their property. The RTC ordered the petitioner to vacate the encroached area, turn over possession and ownership to the respondents, remove any constructed fence on the encroached area, and pay attorney's fees. Procedural History: Following the RTC's decision on July 25, 2008, and the denial of her motion for reconsideration on August 21, 2008, petitioner Ceferina Lopez Tan filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on October 2, 2008. The Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated November 6, 2008, dismissed the petition, deeming it the wrong mode of appeal. Petitioner's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the Court of Appeals on March 10, 2009. The RTC's judgment had become final and executory as the petitioner failed to file an ordinary appeal within the reglementary period after the denial of her motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner Ceferina Lopez Tan seeks review of the Court of Appeals' dismissal through a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. She contends that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing her petition for certiorari, arguing that it was the proper remedy due to the alleged grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by the trial court. Petitioner asserts that the RTC's decision was an oppressive exercise of judicial authority and that her case falls under an exception to the general rule that certiorari is not available when an appeal is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. She further argues for a liberal interpretation of procedural rules to serve substantial justice, as the RTC's denial of her motion for reconsideration meant she could no longer avail of an ordinary appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground of wrong mode of appeal, considering the propriety of certiorari and the allegations of grave abuse of discretion. Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in rendering its decision, and whether certiorari can be a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition for certiorari is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari and the dismissal of the petition: The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is strictly limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The petition must establish the lack of other remedies. While the petitioner correctly impleaded the trial court judge, the alleged errors (appreciation of defenses, sufficiency of evidence, clarity of title, violation of forum-shopping rules, award of attorney's fees, and validity of counter-claims) are errors of judgment, proper for ordinary appeal, not grave abuse of discretion. On the availability of appeal and the use of certiorari as a substitute: The Court emphasized that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. The petitioner had a remedy of appeal under Rule 42 after the RTC's denial of her motion for reconsideration, with a fifteen-day period to file. Failing to appeal within this period, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, attempting to salvage the lost appeal. The Court found no justification for this wrong mode of appeal and denied the plea for liberal interpretation of the rules, absent a clear showing of how such application would further justice.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a special civil action limited to the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal, especially when an ordinary appeal under Rule 42 was available and the period for filing had lapsed.