G.R. No. L-38280 and L-39905, March 21, 1975
ST. PETER MEMORIAL PARK, INC. and BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS & MORTGAGE BANK, petitioners, vs. HON. JOSE C. CAMPOS, JR., REGINO CLEOFAS, and LUCIA DE LA CRUZ, respondents.

FACTS

Spouses Regino Cleofas and Lucia de la Cruz filed a complaint to recover ownership of Lot No. 719, Piedad Estate, claiming their predecessor’s title was destroyed by fire in 1933. They sought to annul the certificates of title issued to St. Peter Memorial Park, Inc. and Araceli Wijangco del Rosario, as well as the mortgages constituted in favor of Banco Filipino and the National Investment and Development Corporation. The trial court ruled in favor of the spouses. Petitioners Memorial Park and Banco Filipino filed a joint motion for reconsideration and a motion for new trial, which was denied. They subsequently filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and a joint record on appeal.
Prior to the resolution of their appeal, Memorial Park filed a petition for certiorari (G.R. No. L-38280) before the Supreme Court, assailing the denial of its motion for new trial. The Court issued a restraining order. Later, the trial court, upon motion of the spouses, dismissed the joint appeal, reasoning that the filing of the certiorari petition constituted an abandonment of the appeal. Banco Filipino then filed its own petition for certiorari (G.R. No. L-39905) to annul the order dismissing its appeal.

ISSUE

The main issues are: (1) Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the joint appeal; and (2) Whether it committed grave abuse in denying the motion for new trial.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the appeal. The legal logic is clear: the filing of a special civil action for certiorari, seeking to nullify an interlocutory order (the denial of a new trial), does not constitute an abandonment of a pending appeal from the main decision. These are separate and distinct remedies that can be pursued simultaneously. Certiorari addresses an interlocutory matter involving jurisdictional error, while the ordinary appeal questions the final judgment on the merits. The Court emphasized that Banco Filipino was not even a party to the first certiorari petition (L-38280), making the dismissal of its appeal utterly unjustified. The trial court’s order effectively deprived petitioners of their statutory right to appeal without legal basis.
Regarding the denial of the new trial, the Court found grave abuse of discretion because the motion was based on newly discovered evidence—official records from the Land Registration Commission and the Bureau of Lands—which were not available during the trial and appeared to be material. The trial court’s summary denial without adequately considering the evidence’s potential to alter the outcome warranted correction via certiorari. The Court set aside the appealed orders, reinstated the appeal, and directed the trial court to grant the motion for new trial.