GR 43892; (October, 1935) (Digest)
G.R. No. 43892 ; October 14, 1935
CRISANTO VICENCIO, petitioner, vs. PEDRO MA. SISON, Judge of First Instance of the Province of Rizal, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Crisanto Vicencio was the defendant in five consolidated civil cases for specific performance, where the plaintiffs (respondents) sought to compel him to convey parcels of land. The trial court ordered Vicencio to execute deeds of conveyance upon the plaintiffs’ deposit of the purchase price. These decisions were affirmed by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the trial judge issued several orders to implement the judgment, including an order directing Vicencio to deliver registerable deeds to the Register of Deeds and an order authorizing payment of surveyor’s fees from the deposited purchase price. Vicencio objected, claiming these orders imposed new conditions not found in the original decisions. He filed a petition for certiorari, alleging the trial judge exceeded his jurisdiction and abused his discretion.
ISSUE
Whether a writ of certiorari is the proper remedy to challenge the trial court’s implementing orders.
RULING
No. The petition for certiorari is denied. The Supreme Court held that certiorari is not the proper remedy because the petitioner had an adequate remedy by appeal, which he attempted to pursue but which was dismissed for his failure to pay the required fees and make the necessary deposit. The Court emphasized that certiorari lies only when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alleged error, if any, in the trial court’s clarifying and amplifying orders could have been raised through a motion for reconsideration, which the petitioner did not avail. The Court found no merit in the petition.
AI Generated by Armztrong.