Carniyan v. Home Guaranty Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Home Guaranty Corporation (HGC) filed a complaint for recovery of possession against Ricardo P. Carniyan and others, seeking their eviction from a portion of a 7,113-square meter parcel of land in Constitution Hills, Quezon City. The property is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 262715. Procedural History: The petitioners, instead of filing an answer, filed motions to dismiss and to archive the case, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to HGC's alleged failure to acquire ownership and the assessed value falling below the jurisdictional amount. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied these motions, ruling it had jurisdiction and that the motions were dilatory. The petitioners then filed a motion to expunge the order and for inhibition, which was also denied. The RTC directed the petitioners to file an answer, but they failed to do so, leading to a motion to declare them in default, which the RTC granted. The RTC subsequently rescheduled the ex parte presentation of HGC's evidence. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA dismissed the petition, deeming certiorari an inappropriate remedy and affirming the RTC's orders. The Petition: The petitioners seek a review on certiorari of the CA's decision and resolution, arguing that the challenged trial court orders were issued with grave abuse of discretion. They contend that the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to HGC's failure to submit a certified true copy of TCT No. 262715, that the order of default was premature, and that the rescheduling of the ex parte hearing was hasty. The core of their argument revolves around the alleged jurisdictional defect and the RTC's handling of their procedural motions.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the complaint for recovery of possession. Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying the petitioners' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Archive. Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in denying the petitioners' Motion to Expunge/Rescind the Interlocutory Order with Motion for Inhibition. Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in declaring the petitioners in default and in rescheduling the ex parte presentation of evidence.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The August 26, 2016 Decision and November 28, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the RTC's Jurisdiction and the Denial of the Motion to Dismiss/Archive: The Court held that the RTC had jurisdiction. The petitioners' contention that HGC's failure to submit a certified true copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 262715 deprived the RTC of jurisdiction was misplaced. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the pleadings, not by the evidence presented at the initial stages of the case. A motion to dismiss is filed before parties have had the opportunity to offer and present evidence. The assessed value of ₱50,000.00 was sufficient for the RTC's jurisdiction in an action involving title to or possession of real property. Therefore, the denial of the motion to dismiss and the motion to archive was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The proper remedy for the denial of a motion to dismiss is to file an answer and proceed to trial, not a petition for certiorari. On the Denial of the Motion to Expunge/Rescind with Motion for Inhibition: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The motion was essentially a motion for reconsideration of a previous order and a second motion for inhibition. A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC specifically prohibits the filing of multiple motions for inhibition by one party. Since the petitioners had already moved for inhibition previously, which was denied, their subsequent motion for inhibition was proscribed, justifying its denial. On the Order of Default and Rescheduling of Ex Parte Hearing: The Court reiterated that certiorari was an improper remedy. When declared in default, the proper recourse is to file a motion under oath to set aside the order of default, showing fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and appending an affidavit of merit. The petitioners failed to avail themselves of this remedy. The rescheduling of the ex parte hearing was a procedural matter within the court's discretion and was not indicative of grave abuse of discretion, especially since the original date fell on a Sunday. The petitioners failed to provide any evidence of arbitrary or despotic action by the judge. On the Appropriateness of the Remedy: The Court emphasized that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a special civil action resorted to only in the absence of an appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Interlocutory orders, such as an order denying a motion to dismiss, are not appealable and can only be questioned on appeal from the final judgment. Similarly, an order of default has specific remedies available, such as a motion to lift the default, which the petitioners failed to pursue. Therefore, the CA correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari is an inappropriate remedy to assail an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss. The proper recourse is to file an answer, proceed to trial, and, in case of an adverse judgment, interpose an appeal. Certiorari may only lie if the interlocutory order was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, which exceptions were not met in this case. Similarly, a petition for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail an order of default when a motion to lift the order of default is available under Rule 9, Section 3(b) of the Rules of Court.