Facts:

In late 1949, Matias E. Vergara, serving as the administrator of the estate of L.H. Golucke who was deceased, initiated legal proceedings in the Municipal Court of Rizal City against Maria C. Arvisu. The action sought to eject Arvisu from a property belonging to the estate and to collect unpaid rents owed. Arvisu countered this by asserting that the property had been awarded to the heirs of Golucke through a final court order, leading her to file a motion for dismissal of the action brought against her. However, the Municipal Court denied this motion, stating there was insufficient evidence to support Arvisu's claims. Subsequently, Arvisu sought to challenge the Municipal Court's decision via a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, arguing that the refusal to dismiss constituted an abuse of discretion. In response, Vergara contested that certiorari was inappropriate since Arvisu could s

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• In 1949, Matias E. Vergara, in his capacity as administrator of the estate of L.H. Golucke, deceased, initiated an action in the Municipal Court of Rizal City.
• The action was directed against Maria C. Arvisu, seeking her ejection from a house and lot belonging to the estate, as well as the collection of unpaid rents.

The Contested Property and Motion to Dismiss

• Vergara’s suit was based on the premise that the property in question had already been adjudicated in favor of the heirs of L.H. Golucke by a final court order.
• As a response, Maria C. Arvisu moved for the dismissal of the action, arguing that the adjudication barred the suit; however, the Municipal Court denied her motion on the ground that no supporting evidence was presented.

Petition for Certiorari and Subsequent Proceedings

• Following the denial of her motion to dismiss by the Municipal Court, Arvisu petitioned the Court of First Instance of Rizal City for a writ of certiorari.
• She contended that the order denying her motion was an abuse of discretion and that it should be subject to review through certiorari.

Motion to Dismiss the Petition and the Court’s Ruling

• In response to the petition for certiorari, Matias E. Vergara filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the proper remedy available to Arvisu was by appeal, not by certiorari.
• The Court of First Instance, on February 18, 1950, granted the motion to dismiss, thereby dismissing the petition for certiorari.

Appeal to the Supreme Court

• Dissatisfied with the dismissal, Maria C. Arvisu appealed to the Supreme Court.
• She raised two primary issues: first, that her remedy was not solely by appeal, and second, that dismissing her petition without a proper hearing denied her the opportunity to present evidence.

Issue:

Interlocutory Order Appealability

• Whether the petitioner’s interlocutory order denying her motion to dismiss in the Municipal Court was appealable under Section 2 of Rule 41, Rules of Court.
• Whether certiorari was an available remedy to correct the alleged abuse of discretion before a final judgment was rendered.

Procedural Adequacy of the Certiorari Petition

• Whether it was error for the Court of First Instance to dismiss the petition for certiorari without holding a hearing and without affording the petitioner an opportunity to present evidence.
• Whether the dismissal of the petition was justified on the basis that the petitioner’s allegations did not merit elevation for review.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)