G.R. No. L-23270, October 29, 1968
MARIA O. SARMIENTO, FELINO S. ACLAN, RODOLFO S. ACLAN and TING SING, petitioners-appellants, vs. HON. VICTORIANO H. ENDAYA and/or MUNICIPAL COURT OF BATANGAS, BATANGAS, THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF BATANGAS, ROMAN O. SARMIENTO and TRINIDAD TORRES, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioners Maria O. Sarmiento, Felino S. Aclan, and Rodolfo S. Aclan claimed co-ownership, through inheritance from Pedro Sarmiento, of a parcel of land held by respondent Roman O. Sarmiento (brother of Maria and uncle of the Aclans). On August 8, 1963, respondents Roman O. Sarmiento and his wife Trinidad Torres filed an ejectment complaint (Civil Case No. 1058) in the Municipal Court of Batangas, presided by respondent Judge Victoriano H. Endaya, seeking to eject the defendants (including Ting Sing) from the land. Petitioners filed a motion to intervene, which was granted on October 7, 1963. They filed an answer in intervention on October 18, 1963, asserting co-ownership and arguing that respondent Roman O. Sarmiento could not eject the defendants against the will of the majority co-owners. They prayed for dismissal of the ejectment suit. However, on November 2, 1963, respondent Judge rendered a decision ordering all defendants to vacate the premises. Petitioners alleged they learned of the decision after the appeal period had expired and a writ of execution had been issued, so no appeal was taken. Respondent spouses later filed motions for demolition. Respondent Judge initially denied demolition on December 27, 1963, due to a pending partition case (Civil Case No. 979) filed by petitioners in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Batangas. However, on March 18, 1964, respondent Judge issued an order of demolition, with instructions to delay delivery until counsel for petitioners received 48 hours’ notice to seek remedies in the partition case. Petitioners, claiming the demolition order would render the preliminary injunction in the partition case nugatory, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CFI on April 3, 1964, alleging grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction. The CFI (Judge Lorenzo Relova), in an order dated April 28, 1964, denied the petition for preliminary injunction, ruling that appeal—not certiorari—was the proper remedy, as petitioners and the defendants in the ejectment case were represented by the same counsel and had received the decision. Petitioners appealed this order to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance correctly denied the petition for certiorari and prohibition, holding that appeal—not certiorari—was the proper remedy against the Municipal Court’s decision in the ejectment case.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the CFI’s order. Certiorari and prohibition are not proper remedies where appeal is available and adequate. The petition failed to show any jurisdictional defect or grave abuse of discretion by the Municipal Court warranting certiorari. Petitioners’ claim of denial of due process—that they learned of the decision too late to appeal—was without merit. The CFI found that petitioners and the defendants in the ejectment case were represented by the same counsel, who was furnished a copy of the decision; thus, petitioners were deemed notified. Even if represented separately, the appeal period for them as intervenors would only start upon actual receipt. Therefore, appeal was the correct remedy, and the CFI properly denied the petition for certiorari and prohibition. Costs were imposed on petitioners.