GR 109656; (November, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 109656 November 21, 1996
LA TONDEÑA DISTILLERS, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HON. JUDGE BERNARDO T. PONFERRADA, JOAQUIN T. GOCHANGCO, ENRIQUE DY, QUINTIN DY, LITO ONG, JERRY ONG and LUIS T. ONG, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents filed an action for specific performance with damages against the original owners of a parcel of land in Bago City after the latter reneged on a contract to sell. A notice of lis pendens was annotated on the title but was later cancelled upon the filing of a bond by the defendants. While the case was pending, petitioner La Tondeña Distillers, Inc. purchased the subject lot. Consequently, private respondents amended their complaint to implead petitioner as an additional defendant, alleging it was not a buyer in good faith.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the amended complaint on grounds of lack of cause of action and improper venue. It argued it was a buyer in good faith as the notice of lis pendens had been cancelled, and that venue was improperly laid in Bacolod City instead of Bago City where the property is located. The Regional Trial Court denied the motion, stating the issue of good faith required the presentation of evidence. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss, warranting the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. First, the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was filed beyond the reasonable period, having been submitted more than three months after receipt of the assailed resolutions. Second, an order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and generally not subject to certiorari unless there is grave abuse of discretion. The proper remedy is for the movant to file an answer, proceed to trial, and raise the issue on appeal.
The Court found no grave abuse of discretion. The trial court correctly deferred resolution on the motion as the ground alleged—petitioner’s good faith—was not indubitable and required evidentiary hearing, which is sanctioned by Section 3, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the action for specific performance with damages is a personal action, not a real action affecting title. Venue was therefore properly laid in Bacolod City, where the plaintiff resides, pursuant to the rules on personal actions. The extraordinary writ of certiorari cannot be used to delay litigation and is unavailable absent a clear showing of capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment.