Facts:

This case, Zosimo Arroyo vs. Hon. Eulogio Mencias, Judge, Ernesto T. Santos, and Ramon A. Santos-Roxas, revolves around a civil matter concerning the partition and accounting of real estate owned by various co-owners. The plaintiffs, Ernesto Santos and Ramona Santos, along with her husband Victorio Roxas, filed an action (Civil Case No. 6557) on March 20, 1961, in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against their co-owners, who included individuals like Nicanor, Miguel, Manuel, and others bearing the surname Santos, as well as Nicolas Belmonte and the heirs of Victorio C. Dionisio. The plaintiffs sought an accounting of the properties, which were collectively owned, and requested the appointment of a receiver to manage the division of rental income derived from leased properties. The defendants contended that the co-owned properties were leased, and any rental income was equally divided among the co-owners post-expenses. Notably, the plaintiffs' motion for the appointment o

...

Facts:

Parties and Subject Matter

• The case involves multiple co-owners of various real estate properties, namely Ernesto, Ramona, Nicanor, Miguel, Manuel, Remedios, Jose, Consuelo, Erlinda, and Serafin Santos, Nicolas Belmonte, and the heirs of Victorio C. Dionisio.
• Zosimo Arroyo, though a co-owner and also one of the lessees, later becomes the petitioner in the present action.

Initiation of the Partition Action

• On March 20, 1961, Ernesto Santos and Ramona Santos, assisted by her husband Victorio Roxas, filed an action (Civil Case No. 6557) in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal for accounting and partition of the co-owned properties.
• In their complaint, they sought not only the partition of the properties but also the appointment of a receiver to manage the rentals from leased properties.

Trial Court Proceedings and Order

• The defendants in the partition case denied that any one person administered the properties, stating that all properties were leased and the rentals were divided equally after deducting expenses.
• Despite arguments from the petitioners, the trial court denied the urgent motion to appoint the Prudential Bank and Trust Company as receiver.
• Instead, on January 9, 1963, the court issued an order directing several lessees (including Zosimo Arroyo among others) to deposit with the Clerk of Court all rentals from portions of the properties leased, so that the rentals may later be distributed among the co-owners in proportion to their respective shares.
• A motion to reconsider this order was filed by the defendants but was subsequently denied.

The Petition for Certiorari

• On April 18, 1963, Zosimo Arroyo, one of the lessees and co-owners, directly filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking:
• The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against the respondent Judge; and
• The setting aside of the January 9, 1963 order of the trial court.
• Petitioner’s arguments included:
• He was not a party to the partition action, and therefore, the lower court lacked jurisdiction over his person.
• It would be impractical for him to deposit with the Clerk of Court a substantial quantity (450 cavans) of palay all the way from Candaba, Pampanga.
• A preliminary injunction was initially granted in his favor.
• Additional parties, including various co-owners and intervenors (such as Nicanor T. Santos, Reynaldo T. Santos, among others), were allowed to intervene in the case.

Procedural Omission by the Petitioner

• The record shows that following the trial court’s order on January 9, 1963, petitioner did not first avail himself of the available remedy in the lower court by filing the proper motion for reconsideration.
• Instead, he directly sought relief in the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari.

Issue:

Jurisdiction and Proper Party

• Whether the petitioner, not being a proper party to the original partition action, is entitled to have his case heard by a higher court.
• Whether the Court of First Instance had jurisdiction over the petitioner given his non-participation in the partition proceedings.

Availability and Appropriateness of the Writ of Certiorari

• Whether the petition for certiorari is a proper remedy when an alternative, plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists in the lower court.
• Whether the petitioner’s failure to first avail himself of the motion for reconsideration in the trial court bars the issuance of the writ of certiorari.

Adequacy of Available Remedy

• Whether filing a special appearance and moving for reconsideration in the trial court as the appropriate channel would have been sufficient to challenge the order.
• Whether the intervenors’ motion for reconsideration could substitute for a direct motion by the petitioner himself.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)