Tan vs. Spouses Antazo

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal; where appeal under Rule 42 was available, certiorari will not lie, and alleged errors of judgment are not proper subjects of certiorari.

Respondent Spouses Apolinar P. Antazo and Genoveva O. Antazo are the registered owners of two parcels of land in Binangonan, Rizal: a 1,024-square meter lot identified as Lot No. 2190, Cad 609-D, Case-17, AP-04-004442, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. M-11592, and a 100-square meter portion of a 498-square meter lot identified as Lot 2175, Cad 609-D. Petitioner Ceferina Lopez Tan was the defendant in an accion reinvindicatoria with damages concerning alleged encroachment on those properties. The procedural dispute concerns the availability of Rule 65 certiorari as a remedy against an RTC decision and resolution, as distinguished from the ordinary appeal under Rule 42.

Respondent Spouses Apolinar and Genoveva Antazo are the registered owners of two parcels of land in Binangonan, Rizal. The first is a 1,024-square meter lot identified as Lot No. 2190, Cad 609-D, Case-17, AP-04-004442, situated at Barangay Pilapila, Binangonan, Rizal, and covered by Original Certificate of Title No. M-11592. The second is a 100-square meter portion of a 498-square meter lot identified as Lot 2175, Cad 609-D.

Respondents filed an accion reinvindicatoria suit with damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 06-019, against petitioner Ceferina Lopez Tan for encroaching on their properties. On July 25, 2008, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 68, Binangonan, Rizal, rendered judgment favoring respondents. The trial court found that petitioner encroached on the property by 114 square meters. It ordered petitioner to vacate the 114 square meters, turn over full possession and ownership to respondents, remove the fence constructed on the encroached area, and pay attorney's fees of P50,000.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied on August 21, 2008. Instead of filing an appeal, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals on October 2, 2008. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on November 6, 2008 for adopting a wrong remedy or mode of appeal. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated March 10, 2009.

The RTC found ownership by respondents through certificates of title. It found the fact of encroachment proven by a relocation survey conducted by a geodetic engineer, which the trial court found credible. The trial court held that this evidence was sufficient to prove both ownership by respondents and encroachment by petitioner.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Petitioner maintained that she rightfully filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals on the ground of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.
• Exception to the No-Appeal Rule: While conceding that certiorari is available only if there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, petitioner averred that her case presents an exception because the decision rendered by the trial court was an example of an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.
• No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioner justified the mode of appeal she adopted before the Court of Appeals in that, under the Rules of Court, no appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion for reconsideration, referring to the August 21, 2008 Resolution of the RTC.
• Liberal Interpretation: Petitioner prayed for a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure.
• Particulars of Grave Abuse: Petitioner listed as grave abuse of discretion the trial court's failure to appreciate her defenses and arguments; finding that the evidence was sufficient to prove encroachment by 114 square meters; ordering her to vacate and turn over possession and ownership despite respondents' alleged absence of a clear title; not summarily dismissing the complaint for violation of the rules on non-forum shopping; awarding P50,000 in attorney's fees without factual and legal bases; not awarding her counterclaims; and rendering a judgment without factual and legal bases, hence void.
• Assigned Error: Petitioner assigned as sole error that the Court of Appeals decided a question of substance in a way not in accord with law or with applicable decisions of the Supreme Court.

• Defective Petition: Respondents contended that the petition deserves outright dismissal for being fatally defective due to failure to show competent evidence of the identities of the affiants who signed the affidavit of service and the verification and certification against forum shopping.
• Improper Remedy: Respondents asserted that certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the decision issued by the RTC.
• Finality of RTC Judgment: Respondents argued that, because the remedy was improper, the filing of the certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals did not toll the running of the appeal period; consequently, the RTC judgment had already lapsed into finality.
• Questions of Fact: Respondents emphasized that petitioner raises questions of facts which are beyond the purview of the Supreme Court to resolve.

• Propriety of Certiorari: Whether a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals is the correct remedy against the Decision and Resolution of the Regional Trial Court.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
• Availability of Appeal: Whether appeal under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court was available to petitioner, thereby barring certiorari.
• Constitutional Requirement of Facts and Law: Whether the RTC decision was void for failing to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
• Liberal Interpretation: Whether procedural rules should be liberally interpreted to allow petitioner's certiorari petition.

• Propriety of Certiorari: No. Certiorari under Rule 65 is limited to correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion and cannot substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. Petitioner failed to prove grave abuse of discretion; the matters raised were errors of judgment or appreciation of evidence, not proper subjects of certiorari.
• Availability of Appeal: Yes. Appeal under Rule 42 was available to petitioner; certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available.
• Constitutional Requirement of Facts and Law: No violation. The RTC decision substantially complied with Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, containing factual bases for its conclusion.
• Liberal Interpretation: Not warranted. Petitioner failed to specifically justify how a normal application of procedural rules would frustrate her quest for justice.

• Propriety of Certiorari: A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a pleading limited to correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It may issue only when the following requirements are alleged in and established by the petition: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board, or officer acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Only the first requisite was present because petitioner correctly impleaded the trial court judge. The second and third requisites were not satisfied.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: A petition for certiorari against a court which has jurisdiction over a case will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is manifested. The burden is on the petitioner to prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave. Grave abuse of discretion is defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility. Petitioner's errors questioned the trial court's appreciation of her arguments and defenses, the sufficiency of evidence to prove encroachment, the existence of a clear title, forum shopping, attorney's fees, and counterclaims. A petition for certiorari does not deal with errors of judgment, nor with a mistake in the appreciation of evidence or the evaluation of its weight. The errors ascribed by petitioner were not proper subjects of a petition for certiorari.
• Availability of Appeal: A writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to the aggrieved party. Certiorari cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal. The remedy of appeal under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court was clearly available to petitioner. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the July 25, 2008 decision; the RTC denied it on August 21, 2008, and petitioner received a copy on August 28, 2008. Petitioner had fifteen days, or until September 12, 2008, within which to file her appeal, but none was made. Instead, she filed a petition for certiorari on October 2, 2008. The Court of Appeals correctly found that petitioner availed of certiorari to salvage her lost appeal.
• Constitutional Requirement of Facts and Law: Item VII argued that the trial court's judgment was void for lack of factual and legal bases. This allegation would be worthy only if the judgment did not state the facts and the law on which it is based, violating Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution. After perusing the trial court's decision, the Court found that the assailed decision substantially complied with the constitutional mandate. While the decision was admittedly brief, it contained all factual bases to support its conclusion. The first two paragraphs established ownership of respondents through certificates of title. The fact of encroachment was proven by the relocation survey conducted by the geodetic engineer, which the trial court found credible. The trial court held that this evidence was more than sufficient to prove ownership by respondents and encroachment by petitioner.
• Liberal Interpretation: Petitioner invoked a liberal interpretation of the procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice. The Court was not persuaded. Aside from citing cases wherein the Court disregarded procedural infirmities to pave the way for substantial justice, petitioner failed to specifically cite any justification how and why a normal application of procedural rules would frustrate her quest for justice. Petitioner was not forthright in explaining why she chose the wrong mode of appeal.

• Certiorari under Rule 65 — A petition for certiorari is a pleading limited to correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Its principal office is to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing grave abuse of discretion. It may issue only when the following requirements are alleged in and established by the petition: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board, or officer acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, only the first requisite was present, so the petition was denied.
• Grave abuse of discretion — The term is defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave. The burden is on the petitioner to prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that petitioner failed to meet this burden because her allegations were errors of judgment or appreciation of evidence.
• Certiorari as a substitute for lost appeal — Certiorari cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal. A writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to the aggrieved party. In this case, appeal under Rule 42 was available, but petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition after the appeal period had lapsed; the Court held that certiorari was improperly used to salvage the lost appeal.
• Liberal interpretation of procedural rules — The Court may relax procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice, but a party invoking liberal interpretation must specifically justify how and why a normal application of the rules would frustrate justice. A bare citation of cases without such justification is insufficient. Petitioner failed to explain why she chose the wrong mode of appeal, so the Court denied the plea for liberal interpretation.
• Substantial compliance with the constitutional requirement of facts and law — Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution requires that no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. A brief decision may still substantially comply if it contains the factual bases to support its conclusion. The RTC decision established ownership through certificates of title and encroachment through a credible relocation survey, so it substantially complied.

• "A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a pleading limited to correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction." — This passage states the scope of Rule 65 and is the basis for the Court's ruling that certiorari was not the proper remedy for the alleged errors of judgment.
• "The term grave abuse of discretion is defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility." — This is the canonical definition of grave abuse of discretion applied by the Court in rejecting petitioner's claim that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion.
• "Furthermore, certiorari cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi for denying the petition: petitioner had an available appeal under Rule 42 but instead filed a Rule 65 petition after the appeal period had lapsed.
• "In this case, the remedy of appeal under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court was clearly available to petitioner. She however chose to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65." — This passage applies the rule to the facts, showing that the proper remedy was appeal and that certiorari was improperly used to salvage a lost appeal.

• Equitable-PCI Bank Inc. vs. Apurillo, G.R. No. 168746, 5 November 2009, 605 SCRA 30, 42-43 — Cited for the requisites of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
• Office of the Ombudsman vs. Magno, G.R. No. 178923, 27 November 2008, 572 SCRA 272, 286-287 — Cited for the definition of grave abuse of discretion.
• Romy’s Freight Service vs. Castro, G.R. No. 141637, 8 June 2006, 490 SCRA 160, 166 — Cited for the rule that certiorari does not deal with errors of judgment or with a mistake in the appreciation of evidence.
• California Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 145408, 20 August 2008, 562 SCRA 403, 413 — Cited for the rule that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available.
• Cua, Jr. vs. Tan, G.R. No. 181455-56, 4 December 2009, 607 SCRA 645, 687 — Cited for the rule that certiorari cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an ordinary appeal.

• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs the petition for certiorari. It limits the remedy to correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion and requires that there be no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Applied: only the first requisite was present; the second and third were not satisfied, so certiorari was not proper.
• Rule 42, Rules of Court — Governs the appeal from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals. Applied: the remedy of appeal was clearly available to petitioner, but she did not file it within the fifteen-day period; instead, she filed a Rule 65 petition, which was improper.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs the petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court. Applied: the instant recourse was filed under Rule 45 to nullify the Court of Appeals Resolution dismissing the Rule 65 petition.
• Section 14, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — Provides that no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. Applied: the RTC decision, though brief, substantially complied because it contained factual bases for its conclusion on ownership and encroachment.

Renato C. Corona (Chief Justice and Chairperson), Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, and Mariano C. Del Castillo. Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura was designated as an additional member in place of Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, who was on official leave.