EVA V. CANTELANG, PEDRO ARIETA, RUBEN COLIAT, MR. ABONOWOG, TONY VIRAY, RUDY RAMEN, CLESTINO CANALE, CHAYONG DINOY, WILSON TANA, FRANCISCO MAGAHAS, ELPIDIO FRANCISCO, GAUDENCIO …

Cantelang versus Hillcrest Realty

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed with the Supreme Court by Eva Cantelang and seventy eight other petitioners against Judge Rustico Medina of the Municipal Court of Taytay, Rizal, against Hillcrest Realty Corporation, and against the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal and his deputies. The petitioners were the defendants in separate complaints for forcible entry and illegal detainer. They ask the Court to annul the judgments of the municipal court and the orders of execution and demolition issued in favor of Hillcrest. The case matters because it is the Court's clean statement of the limits of certiorari: the writ corrects defects of jurisdiction only, and it can never be used as a substitute for a lost appeal or to defeat the right of a prevailing party to execute a final judgment. It is also remembered for the Court's sharp reminder to counsel of his duty to his clients, to the courts, and to society, including the public policy against squatting.

Procedural History

Hillcrest Realty Corporation filed separate complaints for forcible entry and illegal detainer against the petitioners before the Municipal Court of Taytay, Rizal, presided over by Judge Medina. The municipal court rendered two separate judgments in favor of Hillcrest. The petitioners did not appeal, and the judgments became final and executory. The municipal court then issued an order of execution, followed by a writ of execution, and later an order of demolition. A senior deputy sheriff served a notice of demolition on the petitioners.

Instead of complying, the petitioners filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, later amended, seeking to annul and cancel Hillcrest's certificates of title and to declare the estate of Don Mariano San Pedro the legal owner of the lots. When the respondent judge refused to hold the execution in abeyance, the petitioners came directly to the Supreme Court by this special civil action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, with a prayer for a restraining order.

Facts

Hillcrest Realty Corporation claimed ownership of the lots in question, supported by its Original Certificates of Title and Transfer Certificates of Title. It alleged that the petitioners forcibly entered the premises on different dates in 1977, through holes in the fence which they made or over ladders which they constructed against the fence, and that they refused to vacate despite repeated demands. The petitioners answered that the land formed part of the Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban Estate, which had long been possessed by the estate through its authorized representatives and then by the petitioners as authorized by Eva Cantelang, and that their possession had lasted more than ten years.

At the hearing, the petitioners' counsel, Atty. Vicente Revelo, manifested that he was inhibiting himself from further participation because his client had filed a motion to consolidate the cases. The municipal court allowed the plaintiff to present further evidence ex parte. Later, in the interest of justice and fairness, the court reset the hearing to give the defendants their day in court. On that date the petitioners did not appear despite due notice, and their counsel appeared only to repeat that he could not proceed. The court therefore considered the defendants to have waived their right to adduce evidence and submitted the case for decision.

The municipal court rendered its judgments finding that the plaintiff's cause of action had been fully established by preponderance of evidence, and ordered the defendants and all persons under them to vacate and restore the premises, to pay attorney's fees, reasonable compensation for the use of the property, actual and compensatory damages, and costs. The petitioners did not appeal. Execution followed, then the order of demolition, and then the notice of demolition. The petitioners' separate action in the Court of First Instance to annul the titles did not stop the execution, and so they filed this petition.

Issues

• Whether or not the Municipal Court of Taytay had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the ejectment cases and to render judgment therein.
• Whether or not the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders of execution and demolition.
• Whether or not certiorari may be availed of as a substitute for appeal where the remedy of appeal was lost through the petitioners' own fault or negligence.
• Whether or not the filing of the action in the Court of First Instance to annul the certificates of title justified holding the execution in abeyance.

Applicable Provisions

The decision invokes the settled rule on the office of certiorari, which the Court states as follows:

Stated otherwise, the remedy of certiorari is available only when a court in the exercise of its judicial functions, has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and there is no remedy by appeal.

This rule governs the whole petition, because the petitioners had an adequate remedy by appeal which they failed to use.

The Court also relies on the rule that a decision rendered by a court with jurisdiction cannot be corrected by certiorari, however erroneous:

Where a court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person, its decision of any question pertaining to the cause, however erroneous, cannot be corrected by certiorari.

This disposes of the petitioners' claim that the municipal court should not have taken cognizance of the ejectment cases.

Finally, the Court applies the rule against substituting certiorari for a lost appeal:

It is settled dogma that where appeal as an adequate remedy has been lost through petitioner's fault or negligence, he will not be permitted to avail of certiorari as a substitute for an appeal.

This is the doctrinal core of the decision and the reason the petition fails.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Municipal Court of Taytay had jurisdiction. The complaints alleged that Hillcrest was the owner of the lots, supported by its certificates of title, that the petitioners forcibly entered the premises in 1977, and that they refused to vacate despite demands. These allegations conferred jurisdiction over the ejectment cases. Hillcrest submitted overwhelming evidence of ownership and actual physical possession, while the petitioners did not appear at the trial to prove their claims of ownership and occupation, and did not appeal from the adverse decision.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent judge did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction, nor with grave abuse of discretion. The proceedings below were regular and valid in every respect. The office of certiorari is limited to the correction of defects of jurisdiction solely, and it cannot be used to defeat the right of the prevailing party to the execution of a valid and final judgment.

On the third issue, the Court held that certiorari was not available. The petitioners failed to timely file a motion for reconsideration or new trial, failed to file a petition for relief from judgment, and failed to appeal. The questions they raised, such as ownership, possession for more than one year, and the correctness of the municipal court's judgment, were errors of law that should have been taken up in an appeal, not jurisdictional errors correctable by certiorari.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the action in the Court of First Instance to annul the certificates of title did not justify holding the execution in abeyance. That action was a desperate attempt to make it appear that title and possession were genuine issues in the ejectment cases. The Court also reminded counsel of his duty to advise his clients of the real merits of their cause, and of his social responsibility to promote the public policy against squatting rather than give it comfort.

Doctrine

Certiorari is a special civil action limited to the correction of defects of jurisdiction. It lies only when a court has acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no remedy by appeal. Where a court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person, its decision on any question pertaining to the cause, however erroneous, cannot be corrected by certiorari. Where the remedy of appeal has been lost through the petitioner's fault or negligence, certiorari will not be permitted as a substitute. A final and executory judgment may not be disturbed, and the prevailing party has a right to its execution. Finally, counsel owes duties not only to his client and to the courts but also to society, and he must not lend himself to dilatory maneuvers that frustrate the prompt administration of justice or encourage squatting.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, with costs charged to Atty. Fernando Domingo, who was ordered to reimburse the same to his clients, the petitioners.

Remember This

Memorize this line: certiorari corrects defects of jurisdiction only, and it is never a substitute for an appeal lost through the petitioner's own fault or negligence. Examiners use this case to test the requisites and limits of certiorari, the rule against substituting it for appeal, and the finality and executory nature of judgments in ejectment cases.