G.R. No. 172588 ; March 13, 2013
ISABEL N. GUZMAN, Petitioner, vs. ANIANO N. GUZMAN and PRIMITIVA G. MONTEALTO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Isabel N. Guzman filed an ejectment complaint against her children, respondents Aniano Guzman and Primitiva Montealto, before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Tuguegarao City. She alleged ownership of a parcel of land under TCT No. T-74707, asserting that the respondents occupied it by mere tolerance and refused to vacate despite a written demand. The respondents countered that the petitioner had transferred her property rights to them via a 1996 document, retaining only a usufructuary right, and accused her of forum shopping due to a pending petition for cancellation of adverse claim in the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The MTC ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding her the lawful owner with a right to possession, and ordered the respondents to vacate and pay rentals and damages. On appeal, the RTC, while affirming the MTC’s jurisdiction and finding no forum shopping, reversed the decision. The RTC held that the 1996 transfer of rights could not be unilaterally revoked and noted the petitioner’s failure to allege prior earnest efforts for a compromise among family members as required. It ordered the petitioner to pay attorney’s fees and litigation expenses to the respondents.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the petitioner’s Rule 65 petition for certiorari.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s dismissal. The Court held that the petitioner availed of the wrong remedy. A decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, as in this ejectment appeal, must be challenged via a petition for review under Rule 42, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The petitioner lost her right to a Rule 42 appeal when she filed a second motion for reconsideration before the RTC, a pleading expressly prohibited under Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal and is only available to correct jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The petitioner’s allegations of the RTC’s errors in evaluating evidence and applying substantive law pertained to errors of judgment, correctable by appeal, not certiorari.
On the substantive merits, the Court found the CA correctly ruled that the petitioner could not claim possession by mere tolerance against the respondents. The 1996 document, coupled with the respondents’ status as compulsory heirs of the original owner, established a scenario of co-ownership or a vested right in the property inconsistent with the concept of precarious possession. Furthermore, the RTC correctly applied Article 151 of the Family Code, which mandates that no suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless earnest efforts toward a compromise have been shown. The petitioner’s complaint failed to allege such efforts, constituting a valid ground for dismissal.