GR 63975; (May, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 63975 ; May 31, 1991
GUILLERMO RIZO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. ANTONIO P. SOLANO, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents, the spouses Delos Santos, are the registered owners of a parcel of land in Quezon City. Their title was previously upheld by the Court of Appeals in 1976. After petitioners, who were occupants of the property, refused to vacate despite written demands, private respondents filed an accion publiciana (Civil Case No. Q-29366) to recover possession. During trial, after private respondents rested their case, petitioners sought several postponements to negotiate a settlement.
On the final hearing date for petitioners’ evidence, neither they nor their counsel appeared. Consequently, the trial court deemed petitioners to have waived their right to present evidence, declared the proceedings terminated, and subsequently rendered a decision on March 15, 1983, ordering petitioners to vacate the property. Petitioners filed a motion to set aside the decision, which was denied by the trial court in its order dated April 27, 1983.
ISSUE
Whether the special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to assail the trial court’s decision and its order denying the motion to set it aside.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that certiorari and prohibition are improper remedies. The Court emphasized that these extraordinary writs under Rule 65 are available only when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Here, the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal.
The trial court’s order dated April 27, 1983, which denied the motion to set aside the decision, was a final order. Petitioners received a copy of this denial on May 3, 1983, giving them until May 5, 1983, to perfect an appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Instead of appealing, petitioners opted to file the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition on May 13, 1983. By allowing the reglementary period for appeal to lapse, the trial court’s order became final and executory, placing the case beyond the scope of judicial review. The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision and order, and lifted the temporary restraining order it had previously issued.