G.R. No. L-44051 June 27, 1985
EUFRACIA VDA. DE CRISOLOGO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ANDRES PLAN and BERNARDO MALLILLIN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, claiming to be the legal heirs of Lutgarda Capiao, filed an action against private respondent Bernardo Mallillin for ownership, annulment of sale, and delivery of possession of various properties. They sought to annul deeds of sale executed by Lutgarda in Mallillin’s favor. After pre-trial and during trial, Mallillin moved for summary judgment, arguing petitioners were strangers to Lutgarda as she was the illegitimate daughter of Julia Capiao. The trial court granted the motion, applying Article 992 of the Civil Code, which bars inheritance between an illegitimate child and the legitimate relatives of the parent. It dismissed the amended complaint, finding petitioners, as legitimate relatives of Julia, could not inherit from Lutgarda, an illegitimate child.
Petitioners received the summary judgment on April 22, 1974, filed a motion for reconsideration on May 14, 1974, and received its denial on August 22, 1974. They filed a notice of appeal on August 26, 1974, and submitted their record on appeal on September 18, 1974, which was initially approved but later revoked. On January 24, 1975, the trial court dismissed the appeal, finding the record on appeal was filed out of time. Petitioners then filed a special civil action for mandamus with the Court of Appeals to compel approval of their record on appeal. The appellate court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The legal logic rests on the statutory jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over special civil actions like mandamus. Under Section 30 of the Judiciary Act (Republic Act 296), the Court of Appeals has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus only “in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.” This has been consistently interpreted to mean that the appellate court can act on such a writ only if the main case, were it appealed, would fall under its exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Here, the main case involved questions of law regarding the application of Article 992 of the Civil Code on intestate succession and the status of Lutgarda Capiao. Such an appeal would have been within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeals. Consequently, jurisdiction over the ancillary mandamus petition to compel approval of the record on appeal devolved exclusively upon the Supreme Court. The appellate court, therefore, properly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Furthermore, mandamus cannot be used to control a judge’s discretion or to compel a particular decision, but only to compel the exercise of discretion or jurisdiction. The trial judge’s dismissal of the appeal for being filed out of time was a proper exercise of discretion.