Jader v. Allones
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Mariano Turgo died intestate in 1924, leaving six children. In 1960, the siblings executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement, partitioning a 1,125 sq. meter land. The land covered by Tax Declaration No. 9796 was divided among Nicolas, Filemon, and Alfredo. Through subsequent cancellations and replacements, the land size was reduced to 373 sq. meters due to road widening. In 1985, Nicolas executed a Relinquishment of Rights in favor of his daughter, Evelyn, over Lot 6812 (373 sq. meters). Evelyn was granted Free Patent No. IV-8-2187 and issued Original Certificate of Title P-9980. Nieves Turgo Jader, daughter of Filemon, filed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim. In 1993, Nieves, with Evelyn's consent, occupied and built a house on a portion of the land. In 1999, Evelyn's husband, Nicasio, evicted Nieves' son and attorney-in-fact, Carlito, and rented out the house. Evelyn died on August 3, 2006. In 2009, Nieves filed a complaint before the Lupong Tagapamayapa, claiming ownership. After no settlement, a Certificate to File Action was issued. Nieves, along with Alfredo's daughters Zenaida and Lucia, filed an action for partition of property with damages before the RTC of Infanta, Quezon, Branch 65, docketed as Civil Case No. 785-1. Procedural History: The RTC, treating the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment as a judgment on the pleadings, denied it, finding a genuine issue of ownership. The RTC ruled that the case involved title to real property and, considering the assessed value of P13,055.00 (2003 Tax Declaration No. 02-14-001-0064-R), determined it fell within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first-level court pursuant to Sec. 33 (3) of BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, and dismissed the complaint. The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration, reiterating that the real issue was ownership, not partition, and that the assessed value of the two-thirds portion (P8,703.33) was within the first-level court's jurisdiction. The RTC dismissed the plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal, stating the dismissal was without prejudice. Subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied. The plaintiffs elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The Petition: Petitioners prayed for the setting aside of the RTC's April 22, 2013 and May 24, 2013 Orders denying their Notice of Appeal and Motion for Reconsideration, respectively. Alternatively, they prayed for the setting aside of the April 14, 2011 Order denying their Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing the complaint, and the January 19, 2012 Resolution denying their Motion for Reconsideration.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the May 24, 2013 Order, considering the procedural defect in the petition for certiorari and the nature of certiorari as a remedy. Whether or not the RTC correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, considering the ultimate objective of the complaint and the assessed value of the property.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged grave abuse of discretion and procedural defect: The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 requires a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution. Failure to attach this is grounds for dismissal. Certiorari corrects errors of jurisdiction, not judgment, and requires a showing of gross abuse of discretion. The petitioners failed to demonstrate such abuse by the RTC. The RTC's orders were clear, concise, and substantiated. The dismissal was based on the RTC's finding that the real issue was ownership, and the assessed value of the property conferred jurisdiction upon the first-level court. The petitioners' claim of grave abuse of discretion was unsupported. On the RTC's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction: The RTC correctly determined that the ultimate objective of the complaint was to recover title over a portion of the land, not merely to partition it. The RTC also correctly considered the assessed value of the property, which fell within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first-level courts as provided by Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 (BP 129), as amended by Republic Act 7691 (RA 7691). The RTC's reasoning that the case involved title to real property and that the assessed value dictated jurisdiction was in accordance with the law. Therefore, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court must be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order, or resolution subject thereof; failure to comply with this requirement is sufficient ground for dismissal. Furthermore, certiorari is an extraordinary writ meant to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment, and the abuse of discretion must be so gross or grave as to amount to a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.