Guzman v. Guzman

G.R. No. 172588 · 2013-03-18 · J. BRION, J.: · Remedial Law

REITERATION

Facts

The Antecedents: Petitioner Isabel N. Guzman and her deceased husband Arnold N. Guzman previously owned a 1,446-square meter parcel of land designated as Lot No. 2419-B in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-74707, with Isabel holding the 6/7th share and Arnold the 1/7th share. Respondents Aniano N. Guzman and Primitiva G. Montealto, Isabel's children, occupied the property merely by tolerance as family members without any title or possessory rights. On January 17, 2000, Isabel served a written demand upon the respondents to vacate the premises, which they ignored. Barangay conciliation proceedings subsequently failed to amicably settle the dispute between the parties. On June 15, 2000, Isabel filed a complaint for ejectment (forcible entry or unlawful detainer) with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Tuguegarao City, Branch 4, docketed as Civil Case No. 2095, alleging her ownership, respondents' tolerance possession, non-compliance with demand, and failed conciliation. Respondents answered claiming a December 28, 1996 document where Isabel transferred all her property rights except usufruct to her children, and accused Isabel of forum shopping due to a pending RTC petition for cancellation of adverse claim raising ownership issues. Procedural History: The MTC, in its November 27, 2002 decision, ruled for Isabel, declaring her the lawful owner entitled to possession, rejecting forum shopping as ownership was only provisionally resolved for possession purposes, and ordering respondents to vacate, pay monthly rentals from January 2000, and damages. Respondents appealed to RTC Branch 1, Tuguegarao City (Civil Case No. 6117), arguing lack of jurisdiction, no cause of action, forum shopping, and MTC error. On May 19, 2005, RTC affirmed MTC jurisdiction under BP 129 Sec. 33(2), valid cause of action, and no forum shopping (different causes from adverse claim cancellation), but reversed on merits, holding the 1996 transfer irrevocable unilaterally and noting unproven compromise efforts under Family Code Art. 151; ordered Isabel to pay attorney's fees and litigation expenses. Isabel received RTC decision June 16, 2005; filed first MR June 30, denied July 6 for lack of notice of hearing; second MR July 14, denied July 15 as out of time; third MR July 20, denied July 22 with finality. Isabel filed Rule 65 certiorari with CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 90799) on August 8, 2005, alleging grave abuse; CA dismissed February 3, 2006 for wrong remedy (should be Rule 42) and meritless (co-ownership as heirs, lost appeal via second MR); denied MR April 17, 2006. The Petition: In this Rule 45 petition, Isabel argues RTC grave abuse in resolving unraised issues (transfer revocation, compromise efforts), strict notice of hearing enforcement, and CA's baseless co-ownership finding; justifies Rule 65 as RTC acted with GAD. Respondents counter Rule 42 proper, Rule 65 not substitute for lost appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether the CA erred in dismissing the Rule 65 petition for certiorari assailing the RTC's appellate decision in an ejectment case. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the MTC, considering unassigned errors, and denying motions for lack of notice of hearing.

Ruling

The petition lacks merit. The February 3, 2006 CA decision and April 17, 2006 resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 90799 are affirmed. Costs against petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi

On the wrong remedy (Rule 65 certiorari improper): The RTC rendered its decision and orders in exercise of appellate jurisdiction over an MTC ejectment case; the correct recourse is a verified Rule 42 petition for review filed within 15 days from notice of the judgment or denial of a timely first motion for reconsideration, per Section 1, Rule 42. Petitioner filed a prohibited second motion for reconsideration under Section 5, Rule 37 ('No party shall be allowed a second motion for reconsideration'), rendering it a mere scrap of paper that did not toll the 15-day appeal period; thus, the RTC decision became final and executory 15 days after receipt of the first MR denial, immutable per Land Bank v. Suntay (G.R. No. 188376). Certiorari under Rule 65 is exceptional, available only where no appeal lies or grave abuse exists, and is mutually exclusive with appeal, not alternative or successive (Philippine Amusement v. CA, G.R. No. 185668; Catindig v. Vda. de Meneses, G.R. Nos. 165851/168875); it cannot cure a lost appeal due to petitioner's negligence in filing multiple MRs without notice. Even if treated as Rule 65, it fails as it reviews only jurisdictional errors/grave abuse, not judgment errors correctible by appeal (Home Development Mutual Fund v. See, G.R. No. 170292; Pilipino Telephone Corp. v. Radiomarine, G.R. No. 152092). On no grave abuse of discretion by RTC: RTC had jurisdiction under BP 129 Sec. 33(2) and Rule 70 Sec. 18, mandating decision on entire MTC record and pleadings; it could review unassigned errors like the 1996 transfer (in records) if necessary for just decision, per Heirs of Doronio v. Heirs of Doronio (G.R. No. 169454). Strict enforcement of notice of hearing for MRs (Secs. 4-5, Rule 15) upholds due process to avoid surprises (Jehan Shipping v. NFA, 514 Phil. 166; Sembrano v. Ramirez, 248 Phil. 260); petitioner's counsel absence no excuse. Ejectment summary for de facto possession only, ownership provisional (Go, Jr. v. CA, 415 Phil. 172); transfer/revocation validity for plenary action, not ejectment.

Main Doctrine

In ejectment cases appealed from MTC to RTC, the RTC exercises appellate jurisdiction and decides based on the entire record under Section 18, Rule 70, allowing review of matters not explicitly assigned as errors if necessary for a just decision. The proper remedy to assail an RTC appellate decision is a Rule 42 petition for review filed within 15 days from notice of judgment or denial of a timely motion for reconsideration; a Rule 65 petition for certiorari is improper as it reviews only jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion, not errors of judgment, and cannot substitute for a lost appeal caused by the party's own procedural lapses. A second motion for reconsideration is expressly prohibited by Section 5, Rule 37, rendering it a mere scrap of paper that does not toll the appeal period, leading to finality of the judgment after 15 days from denial of the first motion. Motions for reconsideration must include notice of hearing per Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15, as an integral part of procedural due process to prevent surprises; non-compliance justifies denial without grave abuse. Ejectment is a summary proceeding for de facto possession, with any ownership rulings provisional only, to be resolved in separate plenary actions; tolerance possession ends upon demand to vacate, but transfers of rights require judicial revocation if contested.