Case Digest: HEIRS OF THE LATE FERNANDO S. FALCASANTOS, et al. v. SPOUSES FIDEL YEO TAN and SY SOC TIU, et al.

HEIRS OF THE LATE FERNANDO S. FALCASANTOS, et al. v. SPOUSES FIDEL YEO TAN and SY SOC TIU, et al.

541 SCRA 211 (2009)

Policarpio Falcasantos owned a parcel of land in Zamboanga City, which he transferred to Jose Falcasantos, one of his eight children. The land title was later on transferred to Spouses Fidel Yeo Tan and Sy Soc Tiu, et al. Falcasantos, et al. filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City a complaint for quieting of title and/or declaration of nullity of documents against respondent Spouses Tan and Tiu, et al.. It alleged that Jose, through fraud, deceit and/or undue influence caused their father Policarpio to sign a Deed of Sale, making it appear that Policarpio sold to him one-half of the property on account of which Jose was able to have even the entire area of the property titled in his name.

The RTC dismissed the complaint saying that the prescriptive period had already expired. The Motion for Reconsideration was also denied. Since there was no appeal, a Certificate of Finality of Judgment was issued. Later on, the Heirs assailed the trial court‘s order via Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), contending that they were allegedly deprivation of due process by the trial court for not giving them the opportunity to present evidence “to prove the causes of action.” The CA dismissed the complaint, holding that Certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail a final order of the trial court and, in any event, the petition for Certiorari was not only filed one day late, but was also defective in form and substance. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

Whether or not Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is an appropriate remedy in the case at bar

HELD:

The trial court‘s order of dismissal of the Heirs‘ complaint attained finality on September 2, 2005 following their failure to appeal it, which is a final, not an interlocutory order, within 15 days from August 18, 2005 when their counsel received a copy thereof.Even if procedural rules were to be relaxed by allowing the Heirs‘ availment before the appellate court of Certiorari, instead of appeal, to assail the dismissal of their complaint, not only was the petition for Certiorari filed beyond the 60-day reglementary period. It glaringly failed to allege how the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint. It merely posited that in dismissing the complaint, the Heirs were deprived of the opportunity to present evidence to “prove the causes of action.” Such position does not lie, however, for the Heirs‘ complaint was dismissed precisely because after considering respondents‘ Motion to Dismiss and petitioners‘ 14-page “VEHEMENT OPPOSITION to the Motion to Dismiss” in which they proffered and exhaustively discussed the grounds for the denial of the Motion to Dismiss, the trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription.

While in their Motion for Reconsideration of the appellate court‘s decision the Heirs explained why the questioned dismissal by the trial court of their complaint was issued in grave abuse of discretion, the Court finds that just the same, the petition for Certiorari before the appellate court was doomed for it failed to allege that the trial court 1) acted without jurisdiction for not having the legal power to determine the case; 2) acted in excess of jurisdiction for, being clothed with the power to determine the case, it overstepped its authority as determined by law; and 3) committed grave abuse of discretion for acting in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its judgment as to be said to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.