Scribd
Upload
98 views

Tan v. Antazo

1) The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's petition for certiorari, finding that it was not the proper remedy in this case. Certiorari is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, and the petitioner failed to establish these elements. 2) Specifically, while the petitioner correctly named the trial court judge, she did not prove grave abuse of discretion, which requires actions that are capricious, whimsical, or a refusal to perform duties. 3) Additionally, the ordinary remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner, and certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. Therefore, the requirements for certiorari were not met.

Uploaded by

Marie Bernadette Bartolome
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
98 views

Tan v. Antazo

1) The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's petition for certiorari, finding that it was not the proper remedy in this case. Certiorari is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, and the petitioner failed to establish these elements. 2) Specifically, while the petitioner correctly named the trial court judge, she did not prove grave abuse of discretion, which requires actions that are capricious, whimsical, or a refusal to perform duties. 3) Additionally, the ordinary remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner, and certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. Therefore, the requirements for certiorari were not met.

Uploaded by

Marie Bernadette Bartolome
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Tan v.

Antazo
G.R. No. 187208, February 23, 2011

PEREZ, J.

Doctrine:

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a pleading limited to correction of
errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;
Requirements are alleged in and established by the petition.

Facts:

Respondent Spouses Apolinar and Genoveva Antazo are the registered owners of two parcels
of land, namely: (1) a 1,024-square meter lot identified as Lot No. 2190, Cad 609-D, Case-17, AP-04-
004442, situated at Barangay Pilapila, Binangonan, Rizal and covered by an Original Certificate of
Title; and (2) a 100-square meter portion of a 498-square meter lot identified as Lot 2175, Cad 609-
D. An accion reinvindicatoria suit with damages was filed by respondents against petitioner for
encroaching on their properties. On July 25, 2008, the RTC rendered judgment favoring respondents.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was later denied by the RTC. Aggrieved, petitioner
filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals dismissed
the petition for adopting a wrong remedy or mode of appeal.  Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration but it was subsequently denied in a Resolution.

Petitioner maintains that she rightfully filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals
on the ground of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. While conceding that
certiorari is available only if there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law, petitioner avers that her case presents an exception to such general rule
because the decision rendered by the trial court is an example of an oppressive exercise of judicial
authority. Petitioner justifies the mode of appeal she adopted before the Court of Appeals in that
under the Rules of Court, no appeal may be taken from an order denying a motion for
reconsideration. Petitioner now prays for a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure.

On the other hand, respondents contend that the instant petition deserves outright dismissal
for being fatally defective due to failure to show competent evidence of the identities of the affiants
who signed the affidavit of service and the verification and certification against forum shopping.
Respondents also assert that certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the decision issued by the
RTC. Being improper, respondents argue that the filing of the certiorari petition before the Court of
Appeals did not toll the running of the appeal period. Consequently, the RTC judgment had already
lapsed into finality.  Respondents also emphasize that petitioner raises questions of facts which are
beyond the purview of this Court to resolve.

Issue: Whether the correct remedy against the Decision and Resolution of the RTC is a special civil
action for certiorari before the CA?

Ruling:

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a pleading limited to correction
of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Its
principal office is 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. It may
issue only when the following requirements are alleged in and established by the petition: (1) that
the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions; (2) that such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) that there is no
appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Only the first
requisite is here present.  Petitioner correctly impleaded the trial court judge in her certiorari
petition.

Regarding to the second requisite, it is well-settled that a petition for certiorari against a court
which has jurisdiction over a case will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is manifested. The
burden is on the part of the petitioner to prove not merely reversible error, but grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondent issuing the
impugned order. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough; it must be grave. The term grave abuse of
discretion is defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as
where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner because of passion or hostility.

Anent the third requisite, a writ of certiorari will not issue where the remedy of appeal is
available to the aggrieved party. The party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals is
proscribed from assailing the decision or final order of said court via Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
because such recourse is proper only if the party has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
course of law. Furthermore, certiorari cannot be availed of as a substitute for the lost remedy of an
ordinary appeal. In this case, the remedy of appeal under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court was clearly
available to petitioner. She however chose to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Dispositive Portion:

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

You might also like