ANA DE GUIA SAN PEDRO AND ALEJO DOPEÑO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. FATIMA G. ASDALA, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 87; HON…

San Pedro versus Asdala

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Ana de Guia San Pedro and Alejo Dopeño against the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 87, and the Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 42, arising from a complaint for recovery of ownership, quieting of title, and damages over a parcel of land in Batasan Hills, Quezon City. The petitioners insist that the Metropolitan Trial Court had no jurisdiction because the action is one incapable of pecuniary estimation. The case matters because it settles two things a reviewee must carry into the examination room: first, that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal; and second, that an action to recover ownership and possession of real property belongs to the first level courts when the assessed value of the property falls within the statutory ceiling.

Procedural History

The private respondents, the heirs of the spouses Apolonio and Valeriana Dionisio, filed their complaint with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 42. The petitioners moved to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, contending that the subject of the litigation was incapable of pecuniary estimation. The Metropolitan Trial Court denied the motion, ruling that under the law it had exclusive original jurisdiction over actions involving title to or possession of real property of small value. The motion for reconsideration was denied.

The petitioners then went up to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 87, by a petition for certiorari. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion, and sustained the Metropolitan Trial Court on the basis of the assessed value of the property. Reconsideration was denied. The petitioners then filed another petition for certiorari, this time with the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition outright on the ground that certiorari was not available because the remedy of appeal was open to them. Reconsideration was denied. The petitioners thus came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Facts

Sometime in July 2001, the heirs of the spouses Apolonio and Valeriana Dionisio filed a complaint against the petitioners and the Wood Crest Residents Association for recovery of ownership, quieting of title, and damages, with a prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction. They alleged that the subject property in Batasan Hills, Quezon City, with an assessed value of 32,100 pesos, was titled in the name of their parents. They claimed that the petitioners, in bad faith, asserted ownership over a parcel of land that encompassed the subject property, prevented them from entering, possessing, and using it, and held a transfer certificate of title that was spurious.

The petitioners moved to dismiss, arguing that the Metropolitan Trial Court had no jurisdiction because the subject of the action was incapable of pecuniary estimation. The trial court denied the motion, holding that it had exclusive original jurisdiction over actions involving title to or possession of real property of small value. The Regional Trial Court and then the Court of Appeals both refused to disturb that ruling, the Court of Appeals dismissing the petition on procedural grounds.

Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners repeated their argument that both lower courts acted with grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari outright on the ground that the petitioners should have availed themselves of the remedy of appeal.
• Whether or not the Metropolitan Trial Court had jurisdiction over the complaint for recovery of ownership and possession of real property.

Applicable Provisions

Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, defines the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, and the Court quotes the amendatory language:

All civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs.

This provision is the benchmark for jurisdiction: since the assessed value of the property in Metro Manila does not exceed 50,000 pesos, the action falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court.

Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure governs the appeal from judgments and final orders of the Court of Appeals, and the Court states the rule thus:

Appeals from judgments or final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals should be by a verified petition for review on certiorari.

This provision is decisive on the procedural issue: because a petition for review was available, the special civil action for certiorari was the wrong remedy.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition was doomed from the start. The settled rule is that where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the special civil action for certiorari will not be entertained, because the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. Certiorari is not and cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal, especially where the loss was occasioned by the party's own negligence or error in the choice of remedy. One of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no available appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, and where an appeal was available, certiorari will not prosper even if the ground is grave abuse of discretion. The Court therefore held that the Court of Appeals acted properly in dismissing the petition outright, and added that since the period to file a petition for review had lapsed, the assailed resolutions had attained finality.

On the second issue, the Court nevertheless put the matter to rest. Actions for reconveyance of, or for cancellation of title to, or to quiet title over real property fall under the classification of cases involving title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein. Under the old law, the distinction between a case incapable of pecuniary estimation and one involving title to property had no substantial effect on jurisdiction. The distinction became crucial with the amendment introduced by Republic Act No. 7691 in 1994, which expanded the exclusive original jurisdiction of the first level courts to include all civil actions involving title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value does not exceed the statutory ceiling. Jurisdiction over such cases is now divided between the first and second level courts, with the assessed value of the real property as the benchmark. Since the assessed value of the subject property did not exceed 50,000 pesos, the Metropolitan Trial Court had jurisdiction, and both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals ruled correctly.

Doctrine

First, the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. Where appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper even if the ground is grave abuse of discretion, and certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal. Second, an action to recover ownership and possession of real property, or to quiet title, is an action involving title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein, and jurisdiction belongs to the first level court where the assessed value of the property does not exceed the statutory ceiling, which in Metro Manila is 50,000 pesos exclusive of interest, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed for utter lack of merit, and the resolutions of the Court of Appeals were affirmed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal, and jurisdiction over recovery of real property turns on assessed value, not on whether the action is incapable of pecuniary estimation. Examiners use this case to test the exclusivity of appeal and certiorari, and to test the jurisdictional ceiling of the first level courts under Republic Act No. 7691.