GR L 2898; (December, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2898 December 23, 1950
LUCILA ORNEDO, petitioner, vs. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Marinduque, JACINTA ORNEDO, LEON, DELFIN, ARTURO, LIBERATO, ANDRES, EUSTAQUIO, all surnamed MABUTE, and MAGNA LABAGUIS, respondents.
FACTS
Two applications for letters of administration were filed concerning the estates of spouses Juan Ornedo and Severina Mistal. Lucila Ornedo, Juan’s illegitimate daughter (whose mother he later married), opposed both applications, claiming ownership of the properties via donation from her father. The cases were consolidated and heard. Judge Enriquez dismissed both applications and the intervenors’ claim, ruling that all of Severina’s property passed to Juan (her surviving spouse with no legal heirs) and that Juan had validly donated his property to Lucila. The applicants and intervenors moved for reconsideration. Judge Ramos, the successor judge, set aside Judge Enriquez’s order, holding that the required publication of the application for letters of administration had not been made, thus the court lacked jurisdiction. However, he also ruled on the merits, dismissing one case and the intervention, and ordering republication and rehearing for the other. Lucila filed a certiorari petition, arguing publication had been duly made and the probate court could adjudicate ownership.
ISSUE
Whether a writ of certiorari is the proper remedy to challenge Judge Ramos’s order setting aside the previous decision and requiring republication of the application for letters of administration.
RULING
No. The petition for certiorari is dismissed. Certiorari lies only for corrective of jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, through a positive or affirmative action that injures the complainant. Here, Judge Ramos’s order setting aside the prior decision and requiring republication was an act within his jurisdiction as a successor judge, equivalent to a modification or reversal of a predecessor’s order, which he had authority to do. Any error in his finding regarding lack of publication or his refusal to rule on ownership in the probate proceeding was an error of judgment, not jurisdiction. Certiorari is not a remedy for a court’s inaction or refusal to rule in a particular manner, nor for errors of procedure or judgment where the court acted within its jurisdiction. Lucila’s remedy, if any, was by appeal, not certiorari.
AI Generated by Armztrong.