G.R. No. 205979, April 28, 2021
HEIRS OF JOSE MALIT, SR., NAMELY: JOSE MALIT, JR., EDILBERTO MALIT, LORETA MALIT-SUMAUANG, CECILIA MALIT-TIMBANG, MARIA LUZ MALIT-FELICE AND TERESITA MALIT-PAULE, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF JESUS MALIT, NAMELY: ELSA MALIT-ALMERO, MYRNA MALIT-ALVAREZ, EDELWINA MALIT-CLARETE, ZENAIDA MALIT-GATDULA, ELISA MALIT-SONGCO, LILIAN M. MALIT, FELICIANA MALIT-PAULE, FELICIANO M. MALIT, AGUSTIN M. MALIT, DIOSDADO M. MALIT AND ORLANDO M. MALIT; AND MARIANITA D. ASUNCION, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The Heirs of Jose Malit, Sr. filed a Complaint for Partition and Damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against the Heirs of Jesus Malit. They alleged that Jose Malit, Sr. and Jesus Malit were sons of Andres Malit, making the parties first-degree cousins and co-owners of a 16.8-hectare parcel of land. They claimed an oral agreement wherein the Heirs of Jesus Malit would facilitate the titling and registration of the property, after which extrajudicial partition would follow. However, the Heirs of Jesus Malit allegedly subdivided the property and caused the issuance of Original Certificates of Title under their names only, refusing to honor the agreement. The Heirs of Jesus Malit moved to dismiss the Complaint on grounds of lack of cause of action, being barred by prior judgment, forum-shopping, and non-compliance with a condition precedent (earnest efforts for compromise among family members). The RTC dismissed the Complaint in an Order dated April 26, 2010, citing these grounds, specifically that the issue was settled in a prior final judgment (Civil Case No. 4816), that property acquired by free patent cannot be partitioned, that only one plaintiff signed the certification against forum shopping, and that no earnest efforts to compromise were shown. The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration. The Heirs of Jose Malit, Sr. then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling it was the wrong remedy as the RTC’s dismissal was a final order appealable under Rule 41, and that the petition was filed out of time. The CA also noted that even if treated as an appeal, it was filed 51 days after receipt of the denial order, beyond the 15-day reglementary period.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the Heirs of Jose Malit, Sr.’s petition for being the wrong remedy or, in any case, being filed out of time.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s Decision and Resolution. The Court ruled that the RTC’s order of dismissal was with prejudice because it was based, among others, on the ground that the cause of action was barred by a prior judgment. Under the Rules, a dismissal on such a ground bars the refiling of the action but is subject to the right of appeal. Since an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 was available, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was an improper remedy, as the two are mutually exclusive. The CA correctly dismissed the petition for being the wrong remedy. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the CA that even if the rules were relaxed and the petition was treated as an appeal, it was infirm for being filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period. The Heirs of Jose Malit, Sr. received the RTC’s denial order on July 6, 2010, but filed their CA petition only on August 26, 2010. The flawed invocation of the remedy did not warrant a relaxation of procedural rules.