G.R. No. 235308 , May 12, 2021
HEIRS OF JANUARIA CABRERA, REPRESENTED BY MIGUELA CABARRUBIAS-ABELLA AND/OR ASUNCION CABARRUBIAS-AQUILA, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF FLORENTINO JURADO, NAMELY: LUCITA U. VILLAMOR MARRIED TO ROLAN VILLAMOR, BERNARDITA DELA ROSA MARRIED TO JOSEPH WINNIE DELA ROSA; ROBERT JURADO MARRIED TO JOSELYN ELLORAN AND GILBERT JURADO MARRIED TO FRANCISCA TAPIA; HEIRS OF FREDESWINDA JURADO, NAMELY: ROLAN VILLAMOR, WILFREDO VILLAMOR, JIFFY VILLAMOR, ALEX VILLAMOR, GLEN VILLAMOR, HANS VILLAMOR, SPONKY VILLAMOR, KEN VILLAMOR, LENNY VILLAMOR, NESTOR VILLAMOR, AND LOURDES TIU; HEIRS OF ANASTACIA ABELLA AND JOVITO ANOLING, SR., SPOUSES EDGAR M. MARTINEZ AND KIM Y. MARTINEZ; DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE CITY OF CEBU, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners, the heirs of Januaria Cabrera, filed a Complaint for Annulment/Cancellation of Titles and Tax Declarations, Damages, Attorney’s Fees, and Costs against various respondents. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-34035 before the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 58. Respondent Lourdes Tiu filed an Answer challenging the complaint on grounds including failure to state a cause of action and petitioners’ lack of personality to sue. The RTC, in an Order dated October 4, 2013, dismissed the complaint against Tiu for petitioners’ failure to state a cause of action, finding that petitioners had not shown they were declared legal and forced heirs of Januaria, thus not real parties-in-interest. This order became final. Subsequently, other respondents filed various motions (Motion for Preliminary Hearing of Affirmative Defenses, Motion to Dismiss, Manifestations and Motions) raising similar grounds. On April 16, 2015, the RTC issued an Omnibus Order dismissing the case against all respondents, reiterating that heirship was crucial and the dismissal based on failure to state a cause of action against Tiu extended to all respondents. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied for being filed out of time. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA. The CA dismissed the petition in a Resolution dated May 30, 2016, ruling that certiorari was an improper remedy as the RTC’s order was a final order appealable by a timely appeal, and that the petition had procedural defects. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated September 20, 2017.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CA gravely erred in dismissing petitioners’ Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 for being an improper remedy.
2. Whether the CA gravely erred in dismissing petitioners’ petition based on mere technicalities.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed CA Resolutions.
1. On the propriety of certiorari: The Court held that the CA correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari as an improper remedy. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The RTC’s Omnibus Order dismissing the complaint was a final order. The proper remedy against a final order dismissing a complaint for failure to state a cause of action is an appeal under Rule 41. Certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. The Court found no “very special circumstances” or “transcendent importance” to justify a departure from this rule. Petitioners’ failure to timely appeal the RTC’s order rendered it final and executory.
2. On dismissal based on technicalities: The Court held that the CA did not err in dismissing the petition based on procedural defects. While rules of procedure may be relaxed for persuasive reasons, petitioners failed to show compelling grounds for such liberality. The CA enumerated specific procedural defects in the petition, including: failure to pay docket fees upon filing the motion for extension; failure to explain why personal filing was not availed of; inconsistencies in the explanation and affidavit of service; deficiencies in the notarial certificate; and filing an extension not allowed by jurisprudence. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure exist for a purpose and their strict observance is required for the orderly administration of justice. Petitioners’ invocation of substantial justice was unavailing as they were not able to justify their non-compliance.