Posted by: Helene Grace on July 26, 2018
FACTS:
Benjamin Rivera applied to GSIS for an award of a residential lot at the GISIS Subdivision, located at Marikina City, Metro Manila. The application was approved by GSIS. On May 8, 1973, Rivera died.
On July 18, 1973, the surviving spouse of Benjamin, Sixta and her children sold the said residential house for four thousand pesos (P4,000.00) to Antonio Olisa. Sixta, in behalf of the heirs of the late Benjamin Rivera, executed a waiver of their rights over the subject residential lot in favor of the GSIS. In virtue of such waiver, Olisa continued the amortization payments for the lot to the GSIS. Olisa took over peaceful and physical possession of the conveyed residential house and constructed a new residential house thereat. The receipt of such amortization payments made by Olisa to the GSIS were issued still in the name of the deceased Benjamin Rivera.
GSIS executed a deed of sale after the full payment in favor of the heirs of Benjamin Rivera. The heirs executed a deed of sale of the subject parcel of land, already titled in their names, conveying the property to Vicente Francisco, a brother of Sixta F. Rivera. A complaint for annulment of sale, titles and damages against GSIS, the heirs of Benjamin Rivera and Vicente Francisco was then filed by Olisa with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 272, Marikina.
The trial court ordered the dismissal of the complaint as against the GSIS. Olisa filed a motion for partial reconsideration. However, the trial court denied Olisa's motion for partial reconsideration. Olisa did not appeal from the orders dated October 20, 1994 and August 22, 1995. Instead, Antonio P. Olisa filed with the Court of Appeals, a special civil action for certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to dismiss the complaint as against the GSIS.
HELD:
No. The trial court's order dismissing the complaint as against the GSIS is a final order, not an interlocutory one. As the law provides, it "finally disposes of, adjudicates or determines the rights, or some rights of the parties, either on the controversy of some definite and separate branch thereof, and which concludes them until it is reversed or set aside. Hence, it is a "proper subject of appeal, not certiorari."
In the case at bar, Olisa did not take an appeal from the order of dismissal instead, he filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. Certiorari is not available where the proper remedy is an appeal in due course. Hence, the remedy has already lapsed for failure to take an appeal. "The special civil action of certiorari is not and can not be made a substitute for appeal or a lapsed appeal."
The action for certiorari will not prosper. As a rule, certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule. One of which is that appeal would not be an adequate and effectual remedy. None of the recognized exceptions applies to this case.
GSIS is not privy in any way to the contract between Olisa and heirs of Benjamin Rivera for the transfer of rights to the lot in question. Actually, this is a prohibited transaction in the original award to Benjamin Rivera. According to the record of the GSIS, Olisa had not been substituted in place of the original awardee, GSIS was bound to honor the contract with the original awardee. Indeed, the payments were continued in the name of the original awardee. On the other hand, Olisa alleged that he filed with the GSIS an application to be substituted as awardee in place of the late Benjamin Rivera, the original awardee. However, he failed to attach any document to support such claim. The GSIS could not have approved such transfer of rights, which is prohibited in the terms of the award in favor of Rivera. We have held that "facts which appear by record or document included in the pleadings to be unfounded" are not deemed admitted by a motion to dismiss".
Consequently, any error of the trial court in its ruling dismissing the complaint as against GSIS is one of procedure, not of jurisdiction, which may be corrected only by appeal.
FACTS:
Benjamin Rivera applied to GSIS for an award of a residential lot at the GISIS Subdivision, located at Marikina City, Metro Manila. The application was approved by GSIS. On May 8, 1973, Rivera died.
On July 18, 1973, the surviving spouse of Benjamin, Sixta and her children sold the said residential house for four thousand pesos (P4,000.00) to Antonio Olisa. Sixta, in behalf of the heirs of the late Benjamin Rivera, executed a waiver of their rights over the subject residential lot in favor of the GSIS. In virtue of such waiver, Olisa continued the amortization payments for the lot to the GSIS. Olisa took over peaceful and physical possession of the conveyed residential house and constructed a new residential house thereat. The receipt of such amortization payments made by Olisa to the GSIS were issued still in the name of the deceased Benjamin Rivera.
GSIS executed a deed of sale after the full payment in favor of the heirs of Benjamin Rivera. The heirs executed a deed of sale of the subject parcel of land, already titled in their names, conveying the property to Vicente Francisco, a brother of Sixta F. Rivera. A complaint for annulment of sale, titles and damages against GSIS, the heirs of Benjamin Rivera and Vicente Francisco was then filed by Olisa with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 272, Marikina.
The trial court ordered the dismissal of the complaint as against the GSIS. Olisa filed a motion for partial reconsideration. However, the trial court denied Olisa's motion for partial reconsideration. Olisa did not appeal from the orders dated October 20, 1994 and August 22, 1995. Instead, Antonio P. Olisa filed with the Court of Appeals, a special civil action for certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to dismiss the complaint as against the GSIS.
HELD:
No. The trial court's order dismissing the complaint as against the GSIS is a final order, not an interlocutory one. As the law provides, it "finally disposes of, adjudicates or determines the rights, or some rights of the parties, either on the controversy of some definite and separate branch thereof, and which concludes them until it is reversed or set aside. Hence, it is a "proper subject of appeal, not certiorari."
In the case at bar, Olisa did not take an appeal from the order of dismissal instead, he filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. Certiorari is not available where the proper remedy is an appeal in due course. Hence, the remedy has already lapsed for failure to take an appeal. "The special civil action of certiorari is not and can not be made a substitute for appeal or a lapsed appeal."
The action for certiorari will not prosper. As a rule, certiorari will lie only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule. One of which is that appeal would not be an adequate and effectual remedy. None of the recognized exceptions applies to this case.
GSIS is not privy in any way to the contract between Olisa and heirs of Benjamin Rivera for the transfer of rights to the lot in question. Actually, this is a prohibited transaction in the original award to Benjamin Rivera. According to the record of the GSIS, Olisa had not been substituted in place of the original awardee, GSIS was bound to honor the contract with the original awardee. Indeed, the payments were continued in the name of the original awardee. On the other hand, Olisa alleged that he filed with the GSIS an application to be substituted as awardee in place of the late Benjamin Rivera, the original awardee. However, he failed to attach any document to support such claim. The GSIS could not have approved such transfer of rights, which is prohibited in the terms of the award in favor of Rivera. We have held that "facts which appear by record or document included in the pleadings to be unfounded" are not deemed admitted by a motion to dismiss".
Consequently, any error of the trial court in its ruling dismissing the complaint as against GSIS is one of procedure, not of jurisdiction, which may be corrected only by appeal.
