Asican v. Quirino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Roman Custodio filed a complaint against Lorenza Asican seeking to annul a deed of sale over a parcel of land, alleging duress. The parties later submitted a "Stipulation and Petition for Judgement" wherein Custodio conceded Asican's ownership, and Asican agreed to pay Custodio's mortgage debt. The court rendered judgment based on this stipulation. Procedural History: Subsequently, Roman Custodio filed another complaint seeking to annul the same deed of sale on the ground of duress. Lorenza Asican filed a motion to dismiss based on res judicata, which was granted by Judge Ambrosio Santos. Upon motion for reconsideration, the respondent judge, Antonio Quirino, set aside the dismissal order, citing potential enemy influence or duress in the original transaction. Asican's motion for reconsideration of Judge Quirino's order was denied. The Petition: Lorenza Asican filed a petition for certiorari seeking to annul Judge Quirino's order and reinstate Judge Santos' order of dismissal.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court had jurisdiction to act on the motion to reconsider the order of dismissal. Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of reconsideration.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the respondent court had jurisdiction to act on the motion for reconsideration, and any error in the exercise of such jurisdiction is not an error of jurisdiction reviewable by certiorari, but by appeal. Furthermore, there was no grave abuse of discretion found in the respondent judge's order.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction to act on the motion for reconsideration: The Supreme Court held that the respondent court possessed the jurisdiction to act upon the motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal. It clarified that jurisdiction is the power to act, and any error committed in the exercise of that power does not constitute an error of jurisdiction that can be reviewed through a petition for certiorari. Such errors, if any, are proper subjects for an appeal. The Court distinguished between the existence of jurisdiction and the regularity or correctness of its exercise, emphasizing that the power to act on the motion was present, irrespective of the eventual correctness of the decision. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge. While acknowledging that the alleged duress or intimidation by a Japanese protegee pertained to the execution of the deed of sale, the Court noted that this deed was merged into a compromise agreement. Therefore, an attack on the deed could be considered an attack on the compromise agreement as well. The Court also referenced its ruling in Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon which affirmed the validity of judicial proceedings during the enemy occupation, but cautioned that this does not preclude exceptions for proceedings held under actual duress or intimidation. However, the Court did not make a final determination on this specific point, as the full circumstances were not yet established at trial. It expressed a willingness to allow latitude in pleading and proof of duress, given the known policies of terror and violence during the occupation, to ensure justice.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari will not lie to correct an error of judgment in the exercise of jurisdiction; it is only available for grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Proceedings during enemy occupation are presumed valid unless proven to be under duress or intimidation, but such claims require proper trial and evidence.