G.R. No. 167620; April 4, 2007
CAROLINA B. VILLENA, Petitioner, vs. ROMEO Z. RUPISAN and RODOLFO Z. RUPISAN, Respondents.

FACTS

The late Nicomedes Rupisan was first married to Felicidad Zamora, with whom he had five children, including respondents Romeo and Rodolfo. After Felicidad’s death, Nicomedes married Maria Rosario de Castro. During their marriage, they acquired several properties. The spouses executed an “Agreement on Separation of Conjugal Properties,” partitioning specific lots between them, which Maria Rosario annotated on the title. Upon Nicomedes’s death, Maria Rosario executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication over the properties, consolidating title in her name. After Maria Rosario’s death, a holographic will was discovered devising these properties to her niece, petitioner Carolina Villena. Respondents, as compulsory heirs of Nicomedes, filed an action for partition and annulment of title, while petitioner initiated probate proceedings for the will. The cases were consolidated. The Regional Trial Court allowed the probate of the holographic will and dismissed the complaint for partition. Respondents filed a notice of appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly granted the respondents’ petition for certiorari, annulling the RTC’s order that denied their appeal in the civil case for late payment of docket fees, despite the RTC having already lost jurisdiction over the case due to the perfection of their appeal in the special proceedings case.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in granting certiorari. The core legal principle is that once a court loses jurisdiction over a case, its subsequent orders are null and void. Here, the RTC issued the order denying the appeal in the civil case on November 22, 2002. However, the respondents had already perfected their appeal in the consolidated special proceedings case on October 17, 2002, by filing their notice of appeal and paying the required docket fees for that case. Under Rule 41, Section 9 of the Rules of Court, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the subject matter of an appealed case upon the perfection of the appeal. Since the civil and special proceedings cases were consolidated, the perfection of the appeal in one effectively perfected the appeal for both, causing the RTC to lose jurisdiction over the entire consolidated case. Consequently, the RTC’s November 22 order, issued after it had lost jurisdiction, was a nullity. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to challenge a void order; the correct course was to disregard it and proceed with the appeal. The Court of Appeals therefore committed reversible error in annulling the void order instead of recognizing its nullity.