G.R. No. 187208 ; February 23, 2011
CEFERINA LOPEZ TAN, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES APOLINAR P. ANTAZO and GENOVEVA O. ANTAZO, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Spouses Apolinar and Genoveva Antazo, registered owners of two parcels of land in Binangonan, Rizal, filed an accion reinvindicatoria suit with damages (Civil Case No. 06-019) against petitioner Ceferina Lopez Tan for encroaching on their properties. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 68, Binangonan, Rizal, rendered a decision on July 25, 2008, in favor of the respondents. The dispositive portion ordered the petitioner to vacate the 114-square meter encroached area, remove the fence thereon, and awarded attorney’s fees of P50,000.00 to the respondents. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC on August 21, 2008. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals on October 2, 2008. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on November 6, 2008, for being a wrong mode of appeal, a resolution which was upheld upon motion for reconsideration on March 10, 2009. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, arguing that the Court of Appeals decided a question of substance not in accord with law. Petitioner maintained that certiorari was the proper remedy due to the trial court’s alleged grave abuse of discretion, constituting an oppressive exercise of judicial authority, and that no appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion for reconsideration. Respondents countered that the petition should be dismissed for procedural defects and that certiorari was improper, causing the RTC judgment to lapse into finality.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari for being a wrong remedy or mode of appeal to assail the Decision and Resolution of the Regional Trial Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and is available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, the ordinary remedy of appeal via a notice of appeal under Rule 41 from the RTC’s final judgment was available to the petitioner. The petitioner’s contention that no appeal lies from an order denying a motion for reconsideration is erroneous; the proper subject of the appeal is the final judgment (the July 25, 2008 Decision), not the order denying reconsideration. The petitioner failed to prove that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The allegations in the petition pertained to errors of judgment (such as the appreciation of evidence, defenses, and legal questions regarding forum-shopping, attorney’s fees, and counterclaims), not jurisdictional errors. The Court also found that the RTC decision substantially complied with the constitutional requirement to state the facts and the law it was based upon. Since the petitioner availed of the wrong remedy, the filing of the certiorari petition did not toll the reglementary period for appeal, resulting in the RTC judgment becoming final and executory. The rules of procedure must be strictly followed, and liberal application is not warranted in this case.