Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3934)
Facts:
- Maria C. Arvisu appeals the dismissal of her motion to dismiss a case involving her ejectment from a house and lot.
- Matias E. Vergara, as Administrator of the Estate of L.H. Golucke, deceased, brought an action against Arvisu in the Municipal Court of Rizal City.
- Arvisu moved for the dismissal of the action, claiming that the property had already been adjudicated in favor of Golucke's heirs.
- The municipal court denied the motion, stating that no evidence had been presented to support it.
- Arvisu petitioned the Court of First Instance of Rizal for a writ of certiorari to reverse the order denying her motion, arguing that it constituted an abuse of discretion.
- The administrator filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that certiorari was not the proper remedy and that Arvisu had the option to appeal.
- The court granted the motion and dismissed the petition.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Arvisu&...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The court ruled that certiorari will not lie to correct an order denying a motion to dismiss unless the abuse of discretion is grave.
- The contention that an order denying a motion to dismiss is merely interlocutory and hence not appealable is without merit.
- Section 2 of Rule 41, Rules of Court, does not prohibit an appeal but only postpones it until after final judgment is rendered in the case.
- Allowing certiorari for every error committed by the trial court would result in interminable trials.
- The court explained that under Section 8 of Rule 67, once the answer to the petition for certiorari is filed, the court may order the proceedings to be certified up for review and hear the case.
- However, it is not mandatory for the court to do so.
- The court may deny the writ if it finds from the answer that the petition should be dis...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3934)
Facts:
In 1949, Matias E. Vergara, acting as the administrator of the estate of L.H. Golucke, deceased, initiated an action in the Municipal Court of Rizal City against Maria C. Arvisu. The purpose of this action was to eject Arvisu from a house and lot that belonged to the estate and to collect unpaid rents. Arvisu contended that the property had already been adjudicated in favor of Golucke's heirs by a final court order. In response, she filed a motion to dismiss the action, which the municipal court denied, citing the absence of evidence to support her claim. Following this denial, Arvisu sought a writ of certiorari from the Court of First Instance of Rizal, arguing that the municipal court's refusal constituted an abuse of discretion. The administrator, Vergara, countered by filing a motion to dismiss the certiorari petition, asserting that Arvisu had an adequate remedy through appeal. The Court of First Instance agreed with Vergara and dismissed the petition on February 18, 1950. Arvisu subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that the lower court erred in determining that her remedy was by appeal and in dismissing her petition without a hearing or t...