G.R. No. 147550; January 26, 2005
ISIDRA VDA. DE VICTORIA (Substituted by MARIO VICTORIA), petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Respondent spouses Luis and Zenaida Gibe filed an ejectment complaint against Isidra Vda. de Victoria and others before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Calauan, Laguna. The Gibes claimed ownership of a parcel of land purchased from the heirs of Judge Gregorio Lantin, alleging that the defendants, former tenants, were unlawfully occupying portions of this lot. The MTC ruled in favor of the Gibes, ordering the defendants to vacate and pay compensation. The defendants filed a notice of appeal but failed to file a supersedeas bond or deposit monthly rentals.
Consequently, the MTC granted the Gibes’ motion for immediate execution. The defendants elevated the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which dismissed their appeal for failure to file the required memorandum. Their motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner Mario Victoria, substituting his deceased mother, then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, assailing the RTC’s orders. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for being filed out of time.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari for being filed beyond the reglementary period.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The applicable rule is that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 must be filed within sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed. The period is non-extendible and jurisdictional. In this case, the RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on December 17, 1999. Petitioner admitted receiving notice of this denial on December 29, 1999. The 60-day period to file certiorari thus commenced on December 30, 1999, and expired on February 27, 2000. However, petitioner filed his petition with the Court of Appeals only on March 6, 2000, which was seven days late.
The Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the period should be counted from January 31, 2000, a later date he claimed for receipt. Even using this later date, the petition filed on March 6, 2000, would still be beyond the 60-day period ending on March 31, 2000. The filing of a motion for reconsideration before the RTC did not toll the period to appeal the MTC’s ejectment decision to the RTC, as the defendants had failed to perfect their appeal by not filing a supersedeas bond. Therefore, the MTC decision had become final and executory. The subsequent RTC proceedings, including the dismissal for failure to file a memorandum, were void. A void judgment cannot be the subject of a certiorari proceeding under Rule 65. The proper remedy was an action to annul the MTC judgment. The petition was thus correctly dismissed for both tardiness and the availability of another remedy.