Facts:

The case under discussion is Yolanda R. Balayan, assisted by her husband Juan Unari, and Flordeliza Jimenez (petitioners) versus Miguel Acorda (respondent), with the ruling issued by the Supreme Court on May 5, 2006. The origins of the case lie in two separate complaints for accion publiciana filed by the petitioners in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Gamu-Burgos. Petitioner Balayan's complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 757-96, relating to a piece of land situated at Barangay Upi, Gamu, Isabela, which was registered as TCT No. T-233887 in the names of Yolanda Balayan and Juan Unari. Civil Case No. 758-96 involved another parcel of land adjacent to the first, registered as TCT No. T-151149 in the name of Flordeliza Jimenez.

The disputes arose when the respondent, Miguel Acorda, allegedly entered both parcels of land in January 1996 and planted crops, disregarding the petitioners' demands for him to vacate the premises. In his defense, Acorda claimed to b

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Petitioners Yolanda R. Balayan (assisted by her husband Juan Unari) and Flordeliza Jimenez filed separate complaints for accion publiciana against respondent Miguel Acorda.
• The subject matter relates to two parcels of land situated in Isabela:
• Lot 1, covered by Civil Case No. 757-96, registered in the names of Yolanda Balayan and Juan Unari.
• Lot 2, covered by Civil Case No. 758-96, registered in the name of Flordeliza Jimenez.
• Both complaints alleged that respondent entered into and occupied the properties by planting agricultural crops, despite petitioners’ demand to vacate.

Chronology of Litigation and Procedural Events

• Initial Filing and Judgment
• Separate complaints were filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Gamu-Burgos, with respective docket numbers.
• A relocation survey was completed following joinder of issues between the parties.
• Petitioners moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the MCTC.
• On November 9, 1998, the MCTC rendered separate judgments in the two civil cases favoring petitioners and ordered respondent to vacate the disputed properties.
• Issuance of Execution Orders
• Petitioners moved for the issuance of execution orders on January 25, 1999, after the appeal period expired without action from the respondent.
• The MCTC issued an order on May 25, 2000 directing the issuance of a writ of execution.
• The writ of execution for both cases was issued on October 19, 2000.
• Respondent’s Petition for Certiorari
• Respondent filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on February 12, 2001, seeking to annul the May 25, 2000, order directing the issuance of the writ of execution.
• In his petition, respondent contended that he was unaware of the November 9, 1998 decisions until January 22, 1999, which supposedly prompted a belated filing of notices of appeal.
• Despite the filing of such notices, the MCTC judge (Judge Angerico B. Ramirez) did not resolve these interlocutory issues and instead proceeded with issuing the writ.
• Lower Court Decisions on Remedial Motions
• The RTC, in an order dated July 6, 2001, dismissed respondent’s petition for certiorari on the ground that it was filed out of time (beyond the reglementary 60-day period).
• Concurrently, the RTC noted that the failure of the MCTC judge to resolve the pending appeal-related issues amounted to a “patent and gross abuse of discretion.”
• Relying on this observation, respondent moved for reconsideration, charging that the aforementioned abuse of discretion rendered the writ order void.
• Subsequent Developments
• On November 22, 2001, the RTC granted respondent’s motion for reconsideration by nullifying the May 25, 2000, MCTC order and its related processes.
• Petitioners then sought further reconsideration of the November 22, 2001, RTC order, but their motion was denied, leading to the present petition for review on certiorari.

Principal Allegations and Arguments

• Petitioners’ Contentions
• Asserted that respondent’s petition for certiorari was filed beyond the prescribed 60-day reglementary period.
• Raised the argument that even if filed, the petition should be disregarded because certiorari is an extraordinary remedy not substitutive of the available appeal.
• Respondent’s Arguments
• Claimed that he was unaware of the earlier judgment which delayed the filing of his appeal.
• Contended that he promptly filed a notice of appeal and a petition for certiorari after realizing the developments, thus asserting that the filing was timely within the context of the writ’s implementation.

Issue:

Timeliness of the Petition for Certiorari

• Whether the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary 60-day period prescribed by Section 4, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Whether the delay, particularly the filing on February 12, 2001, constitutes a fatal procedural defect.

Appropriate Use of Certiorari as a Remedy

• Whether respondent was correct in resorting directly to the petition for certiorari instead of first exhausting the available remedy of a motion to quash the writ of execution.
• Whether certiorari can be availed of when an ordinary appeal, or motion for reconsideration, is still available or adequate in the ordinary course of law.

Abuse of Discretion by the Lower Court

• Whether the failure of the MCTC judge to resolve respondent’s notices of appeal and the related motion to dismiss amounted to a “patent and gross abuse of discretion.”
• The impact of such failure on the timeliness and appropriateness of the petition for certiorari.

Overall Adequacy of the Available Remedies

• Whether the extraordinary remedy of certiorari can serve as a substitute even if appeal or reconsideration remedies remain unexhausted.
• The implication of this substitution on the due process and speedy disposition of cases.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)