GR 161533; (June, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 161533; June 5, 2009
FILOMENA SONEJA, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (2nd Division) and RAMON SAURA, JR., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Filomena Soneja was the lessee of respondent Ramon Saura, Jr. under a contract that expired in July 1998. She remained in possession without paying rent, leading Saura to file an ejectment case. The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in favor of Saura, ordering Soneja to vacate and pay rental arrears. Soneja appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). During the pendency of this appeal, the RTC granted Saura’s motion for execution, and a property owned by Soneja in Catanduanes was levied upon. Soneja filed a motion to lift the levy, claiming the property was her family home exempt from execution under the Family Code. The RTC denied her motion and later dismissed her appeal for failure to file a required memorandum.
Soneja filed a petition for certiorari (Rule 65) with the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging the RTC’s denial of her motion to lift the levy. The CA dismissed this petition, finding it was filed three days beyond the reglementary period and that the RTC committed no prima facie error. Soneja filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied. She then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Rule 65 petition, arguing the CA gravely abused its discretion in not addressing the substantive issue of the family home exemption.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in upholding the RTC’s denial of petitioner’s motion to lift the levy on her property.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the CA. The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy to correct only errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The CA, in its assailed resolution, provided a valid basis for its decision by noting that the RTC’s order was supported by the evidence on record and that no prima facie error was committed. The appellate court correctly observed that Soneja’s own allegations and evidence did not sufficiently establish that the levied property was constituted as a family home in accordance with the Family Code, particularly as she was residing in Manila at the relevant time. The CA’s dismissal of the petition for being filed out of time was also a valid procedural ground. Consequently, the CA acted within its jurisdiction, and its resolution was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.