GR 165973; (June, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 165973 ; June 29, 2005
LACSON HERMANAS, INC., represented by its President MR. ODILON L. LACSON, Petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF CENON IGNACIO, represented by their atty-in-fact, AMALIA IGNACIO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 48, CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, presided by the HON. JUDGE SERAFIN B. DAVID, Respondents.
FACTS
The Heirs of Cenon Ignacio filed a complaint for recovery of real property against Lacson Hermanas, Inc. before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). They alleged that their predecessor, Cenon Ignacio, purchased a 1,000-square-meter portion of land from the petitioner, fully paid the purchase price, and took possession of the area. Upon Cenon’s death, the heirs demanded the delivery of the title and segregation of the lot, but were informed that the property had been sold to another party. The complaint sought to compel the petitioner to execute a deed of sale and deliver the title.
Lacson Hermanas, Inc. moved to dismiss the case, contending that the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), not the RTC, had jurisdiction. It argued that it was being sued as a subdivision developer and the property was a subdivision lot. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss and the subsequent motion for reconsideration, holding that it retained jurisdiction. The petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition for certiorari challenging the RTC’s denial of the motion to dismiss, which was based on the alleged lack of jurisdiction in favor of the HLURB.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. Procedurally, the petition was flawed. The proper remedy from the RTC’s interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss is not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 but an appeal via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, which must be filed within 15 days. The instant petition was filed beyond this period. More fundamentally, direct recourse to the Supreme Court via certiorari disregards the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Petitions for extraordinary writs against RTC orders should be filed with the Court of Appeals. No special or compelling reasons were presented to justify a direct invocation of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
On the substantive issue of jurisdiction, the Court held that jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not by the defenses in a motion to dismiss. The complaint merely alleged a simple contract of sale of a portion of land and did not characterize the petitioner as a subdivision developer or the property as a subdivision lot. The mere assertion by the defendant that the case involves a subdivision lot does not automatically divest the RTC of jurisdiction and vest it in the HLURB. The complaint’s allegations for specific performance of a contract to sell fell within the regular jurisdiction of the RTC. Therefore, the RTC correctly denied the motion to dismiss.