ALFREDO TAGLE v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK, GR No. 172299, 2008-04-22
Facts:
According to petitioner Alfredo, the subject property is registered in his name and was constituted as a Family Home in accordance with the provisions of the Family Code. He and his wife Arsenia Bautista Tagle (Arsenia) never mortgaged the subject property to respondent. It was Josefino Tagle (Josefino), who was not the owner of the subject property, who mortgaged the same with respondent E-PCI.
Josefino Tagle was religiously paying the installments on his mortgage obligation and had paid more than half thereof. But, he passed away. Petitioner Alfredo was then forced to assume Josefino's outstanding mortgage obligation. Even as petitioner Alfredo was already paying Josefino's mortgage obligation in installments, respondent E-PCI still foreclosed the mortgage on the subject property Equitable PCI Bank (respondent E-PCI) whether before or after the subject property was constituted as their Family Home. It was Josefino Tagle (Josefino), who was not the owner of the subject property, who mortgaged the same with respondent E-PCI. Josefino was... religiously paying the installments on his mortgage obligation and had paid more than half thereof. Josefino, however, passed away.
Petitioner Alfredo was then forced to assume Josefino's outstanding mortgage obligation. On the other hand, respondent E-PCI recounts that the subject property was formerly registered in the name of petitioner Alfredo. It was mortgaged, pursuant to a Special Power of Attorney executed by petitioner Alfredo, to secure the obligation of the spouses Josefino and Emma Tagle with respondent E-PCI. Respondent E-PCI foreclosed the mortgage on the subject property upon default in payment by spouses Josefino and Emma, and upon the expiration of the period of redemption, caused the consolidation and transfer of the title to the subject property in its name.
Consequently, respondent E-PCI filed with the RTC a Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession of the subject property, which was docketed as LRC Case No. P-71-2004. Petitioner Alfredo, however, filed a Motion to Stop Writ of Possession on the ground that the subject property is a Family Home which is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment.
The RTC issued the assailed Order denying petitioner Alfredo's Motion Petitioner Alfredo and his spouse Arsenia filed with the RTC a Motion for Reconsideration of its foregoing order. However, the RTC denied it in another Order. Thereafter, petitioner Alfredo elevated the case to the Court of Appeals on a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 90461, assailing and seeking the nullification and the... setting aside of the denial of his Motion to Stop Writ of Possession. CA dismissed the petition.
Then, petitioner moved for a reconsideration. On 16 February 2006, the Court of Appeals promulgated a Resolution denying petitioner Alfredo's motion for reconsideration. But still, petitioner Alfredo once more filed a Motion for Reconsideration and the Court of Appeals promulgated the last of its Resolutions, denying, as expected, petitioner Alfredo's Second Motion for Reconsideration. They contend that the Petition for Certiorari with Prohibition filed under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. Petitioner Alfredo filed the instant petition designating it in both the caption and the body as one for "certiorari" under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. He alleged that the present petition was based on the sole issue of "whether or not the subject property subject of... the mortgage being a family home is exempt from foreclosure of mortgage.
Issue:
Whether or not the present Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is the proper remedy for petitioner Alfredo to avail in seeking the reversal of the three Resolutions of the Court of Appeals
Ruling:
The court ruled that for its substantive as well as procedural infirmities, the instant petition must be dismissed. A special civil action for Certiorari, or simply a Petition for Certiorari, under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court is intended for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Its principal office is only to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction or to prevent it from committing such a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
A writ of certiorari may be issued only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Such cannot be used for any other purpose, as its function is limited to keeping the inferior court... within the bounds of its jurisdiction. The phrase "without jurisdiction" means that the court acted with absolute lack of authority or want of legal power, right or authority to hear and determine a cause or causes, considered either in general or with reference to a particular matter. It means lack of power to exercise authority.
The "Excess of jurisdiction" occurs when the court transcends its power or acts without any statutory authority or results when an act, though within the general power of a tribunal, board or officer (to do) is not authorized, and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding, because the conditions which alone authorize the exercise of the general power in respect of it are wanting.
While that of "grave abuse of discretion" implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; simply put, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of... passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.
In the present case, there is no question that the 6 September 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing petitioner Alfredo's petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 90461 is already a disposition on the merits. Therefore, said Resolution, as well as the Resolutions dated 16 February 2006 and 11 April 2006 denying reconsideration thereof, issued by the Court of Appeals, are in the nature of a final disposition by the appellate court, and which, under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, are... appealable to this Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, viz:
SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. - A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts... whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari.
The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. From the words of Rule 45, it is crystal that decisions , final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to this Court by filing a petition for review, which... would be but a continuation of the appellate process over the original case. In the case at bar, the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dismissing petitioner Alfredo's petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 90461 were final orders.
They were not interlocutory because the proceedings were terminated; and left nothing... more to be done by the appellate court. There were no remaining issues to be resolved in CA-G.R. SP No. 90461. Consequently, the proper remedy available to petitioner Alfredo then was to file before this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court of the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, and not a special civil action for certiorari.
The availability to petitioner Alfredo of the remedy of a petition for review on certiorari from the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals effectively barred his right to resort to a petition for certiorari. Basic is the rule that a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is available to an aggrieved party. Petitioner Alfredo failed to show any valid reason why the issue raised in his petition for certiorari could not have been raised on ordinary appeal by certiorari. He simply argued that the appellate court gravely abuse its discretion which amounted to lack... or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing his petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 90461 and not finding that the subject property covered by the Writ of Possession was a Family Home, hence, exempt from execution or forced sale. He did not give a single explanation as to why the... errors committed by the Court of Appeals cannot possibly be cured by ordinary appeal under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The remedies of appeal in the ordinary course of law and that of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court are mutually exclusive and not alternative or cumulative. Time and again this Court has reminded... members of the bench and bar that the special civil action of Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal where the latter remedy is available; especially if such loss or lapse was occasioned by one's own negligence... or error in the choice of remedies. Evidently, therefore, petitioner Alfredo erred in filing a Petition for Certiorari instead of an ordinary appeal by certiorari, already a sufficient justification for dismissing the instant petition. But even if his present petition is given due course, we... still find it bereft of merit.
No comments:
Post a Comment