GR 166802; (July, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166802 ; July 4, 2008
SPS. ALBERTO GUTIERREZ and EPIFANIA GUTIERREZ, petitioners, vs. SPS. ROGELIO and JOSEPHINE VALIENTE, HON. ALEXANDER TAMAYO, Presiding Judge, Branch 15, Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan and SHERIFF IV PABLO R. GLORIOSO, respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Spouses Valiente filed a complaint for Quieting of Title and Recovery of Possession against petitioners Spouses Gutierrez, alleging that the latter encroached on a portion of the Valientes’ lot. The Gutierrezes filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was denied. Instead of filing an Answer, they filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was also denied. For failure to file an Answer within the reglementary period, the RTC declared the Gutierrezes in default and allowed the Valientes to present evidence ex-parte. The Gutierrezes filed a Motion to Set Aside the Order of Default, but the RTC did not act on it. The court later ordered a relocation survey, which confirmed encroachments by the Gutierrezes on three portions of the Valientes’ lot. The RTC subsequently issued an Order directing the Gutierrezes to reconvey the encroached areas. No motion for reconsideration or appeal was filed by the Gutierrezes from this Order.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari filed by the petitioners for being deficient in form and for failure to show that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The petitioners lost their ordinary remedy of appeal by failing to file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC’s final Order or to appeal it within the reglementary period. The Order became final and executory. Certiorari lies only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Since an appeal was available but was lost through petitioners’ negligence, certiorari is not permissible. Furthermore, the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its Orders. The RTC’s actions, including the default order and the directive for reconveyance based on the survey report, were within its jurisdiction and did not constitute capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment. The procedural lapses in the CA petition, including deficiencies in form, provided additional and independent grounds for its dismissal. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA Resolutions.