G.R. No. L-20525 February 18, 1967
PETRONILA PINTO, as Judicial Guardian of the Minor, VICENTE TANTONGCO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SY GO, RICARDO TANTONGCO, JUANITA T. LIM, MARIA TANTONGCO, JOSE TANTONGCO, PACITA TANTONGCO, and JOSE B. PUERTO, respondents.

FACTS

Petronila Pinto, as judicial guardian of the minor Vicente Tantongco, filed Civil Case No. 46175 in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Sy Go (widow of the deceased Ramon Tantongco) and her legitimate children. The complaint sought to annul a project of partition approved by the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Special Proceedings No. Q-1879, alleging that the minor, claimed to be an acknowledged natural child of the deceased, was fraudulently preterited. The complaint also sought recovery of his hereditary share (not less than P400,000), an accounting of profits (not less than P150,000), and damages and attorney’s fees (P100,000 total). The estate’s value was alleged to be well over one million pesos. The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground of litis pendentia, citing another pending case (Civil Case No. Q-4093 in the CFI of Rizal) between the same parties for the same cause, where respondent Jose Puerto was appointed guardian ad litem for the minor. The Manila CFI denied the motion, reasoning the causes of action were not identical (Q-4093 alleged the minor was a legitimate son, while the Manila case alleged he was an acknowledged natural child). After their motion for reconsideration was denied, the defendants announced they would file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court but instead filed it with the Court of Appeals, which then issued a decision ordering the Manila CFI to refrain from further proceedings and to set aside its orders for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for certiorari challenging the Manila CFI’s order denying the motion to dismiss.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the Court of Appeals had no original jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for certiorari. This was because the value of the estate involved exceeded one million pesos, placing the case beyond the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over the main action. Consequently, the certiorari petition could not be in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, which it did not possess. Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that, as a rule, an order denying a motion to dismiss is not reviewable by certiorari.