Heirs of Malit, Sr. v. Heirs of Malit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Heirs of Jose Malit, Sr. filed a Complaint for Partition and Damages against the Heirs of Jesus Malit, alleging that Jose Malit, Sr. and Jesus Malit were brothers and co-owners of a 16.8-hectare property. They claimed an oral agreement existed for the Heirs of Jesus Malit to facilitate the property's titling and subsequent partition. However, the Heirs of Jesus Malit allegedly subdivided the property and obtained individual titles solely in their names, refusing to honor the agreement. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the Heirs of Jose Malit, Sr.'s Complaint, citing a prior judgment in a related case, the property's non-partitionable status due to prior free patent acquisition, the lack of proper verification and certification against forum shopping, and the failure to comply with the condition precedent of making earnest efforts to compromise. The Heirs of Jose Malit, Sr. moved for reconsideration, which was denied. They then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA dismissed this petition, ruling that the proper remedy was an appeal under Rule 41, not certiorari, and that even if treated as an appeal, it was filed out of time. The Petition: The Heirs of Jose Malit, Sr. are now before the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the CA's decision. They argue that the CA erred in dismissing their petition, either for being the wrong remedy or for being filed out of time. The core of their argument hinges on whether the RTC's dismissal was with or without prejudice, and whether the CA should have relaxed procedural rules given the alleged merits of their case.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for being the wrong remedy. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for being filed out of time.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court reiterated that a dismissal of a complaint with prejudice, as in this case due to the ground of being barred by a prior judgment, is a final order. The proper remedy to assail a final order of dismissal with prejudice is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is only available when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Since an appeal was available, the filing of a certiorari petition was improper. The Court emphasized that the availability of the remedy of appeal disqualifies the aggrieved party from availing of certiorari proceedings, as these two remedies are mutually exclusive. Therefore, the CA correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari for being the wrong remedy. On the timeliness of the petition: Even if the CA were to relax the rules and treat the petition as an ordinary appeal, it would still be dismissed for being filed out of time. The Heirs of Jose Malit, Sr. received the RTC Order denying their Motion for Reconsideration on July 6, 2010. The reglementary period to file an appeal is 15 days from receipt of the order. However, they filed their petition with the CA only on August 26, 2010, which is 51 days after receipt of the denial of their motion for reconsideration. This is clearly beyond the 15-day period. The Court noted that the filing of the Rule 65 petition was likely an afterthought, pursued only after the right to appeal had been lost. The Court stressed that procedural rules, while sometimes relaxed, are essential for the orderly administration of justice, and the flawed invocation of a remedy does not warrant their disregard, especially when the appeal period has already lapsed.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail an order of dismissal that is with prejudice, as the proper remedy is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41. Furthermore, even if treated as an appeal, the petition would still be dismissed if filed beyond the reglementary period.