G.R. No. 169858 ; January 26, 2010.
JUANITO GERONIMO, ANTONIA LIMSON and LINDA GERONIMO, Petitioners, vs. THE HEIRS OF CARLITO GERONIMO represented by ANGELITO GERONIMO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Juanito Geronimo, Antonia Limson, and Linda Geronimo were the registered owners of a parcel of land in Balagtas, Bulacan. In 1989, their brother Carlito Geronimo proposed to develop the property into a resort. Petitioners, who resided elsewhere, “sold” the land to Carlito and registered it in his name without receiving any payment, designating him as project manager. Carlito obtained a loan secured by a mortgage on the property and, with petitioners’ capital, developed the Villa Cristina Resort, which he jointly managed until his death on June 13, 2002. On February 7, 2003, petitioners filed a petition for cancellation of title against respondents (Carlito’s heirs) in the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, asserting that an implied trust created with Carlito was extinguished upon his death. Summons could not be served at respondents’ purported address, so the RTC ordered service by publication. Respondents received the alias summons by registered mail on September 9, 2003, and were granted several extensions to file their answer, the final extension lasting until October 27, 2003. Respondents posted their motion to dismiss on October 27, 2003, but the RTC received it on November 5, 2003. Petitioners moved to declare respondents in default, which the RTC granted in an order dated February 17, 2004. The RTC proceeded with ex parte presentation of evidence, found an implied trust existed under Article 1453 of the Civil Code, and in a decision dated May 25, 2004, nullified the sale to Carlito and ordered the cancellation of his title. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari in the CA without first filing a motion for reconsideration of the RTC’s May 25, 2004 decision. The CA granted the petition and remanded the case, prompting petitioners to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the petition for certiorari despite respondents’ failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the Regional Trial Court’s May 25, 2004 decision before filing the said petition.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals’ May 25, 2005 decision and September 20, 2005 resolution, and REINSTATED the February 17, 2004 and May 12, 2004 orders and the May 25, 2004 decision of the Regional Trial Court. The Court held that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 can only prosper if the aggrieved party has no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, such as a motion for reconsideration, to allow the lower court to correct its error. Respondents did not move for reconsideration of the RTC’s May 25, 2004 decision. Given that the RTC had leniently granted respondents’ motions for extension to file an answer, its subsequent orders and decision were not rendered arbitrarily or with personal hostility. Therefore, a motion for reconsideration was not a useless remedy, and the petition for certiorari should have been dismissed outright for failure to exhaust this remedy.