G.R. No. 175343 - Luga vs. Spouses Arciaga

Petitioners – Heirs of Jose Malit, Sr. (Jose Malit, Jr., Edilberto Malit, Loreta Malit-Sumauang, Cecilia Malit-Timbang, Maria Luz Malit-Felice, and Teresita Malit-Paule).
Respondents – Heirs of Jesus Malit (Elsa Malit-Almero, Myrna Malit-Alvarez, Edelwina Malit-Clarete, Zenaida Malit-Gatdula, Elisa Malit-Songco, Lilian M. Malit, Feliciana Malit-Paule, Feliciano M. Malit, Agustin M. Malit, Diosdado M. Malit, Orlando M. Malit) and Marianita D. Asuncion.

The dispute centers on Lot 980, a 16.8-hectare parcel of land in Hermosa, Bataan, which is claimed to be co-owned by the respective heirs as part of an inheritance from Andres Malit.

The Heirs of Jose Malit, Sr. initiated a Complaint for Partition and Damages against the Heirs of Jesus Malit.
Key allegations in the Complaint included:

An oral agreement existed between the parties whereby the Heirs of Jesus Malit were to facilitate the titling and registration of the subject property, followed by an extrajudicial partition.
The Heirs of Jesus Malit violated the oral agreement by unilaterally subdividing the subject property into nine lots and causing individual issuance of Original Certificates of Title (OCT) in their names only.
The failure of the Heirs of Jesus Malit to honor the oral pact consequently deprived the petitioners of their rightful share.

The issue raised was already settled in a prior judgment in Civil Case No. 4816 (involving cancellation of title and reversion) which was final and executory.
The subject property, having been acquired by the Heirs of Jesus Malit through a free patent, was not valid for partition.
Inadequate verification—only one among the plaintiffs signed the required certification against forum shopping.
Noncompliance with the condition precedent that required the parties to exert earnest efforts to compromise among themselves before filing the complaint.

The RTC’s dismissal was rendered with prejudice on the ground of a prior judgment, thus barring the refiling of the same action.

After the RTC dismissed the complaint, the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied.
The Heirs of Jose Malit, Sr. then resorted to filing a Rule 65 petition before the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking to annul the RTC’s dismissal based on alleged grave abuse and errors by the RTC.
The petition was filed by Rule 65 certiorari, contending that the RTC’s order was either without prejudice or that the proper remedy was unavailable.

The RTC’s dismissal, being a final order due to the prior judgment clause, was appealable under the Rules.
The remedy of certiorari is inappropriate when a direct appeal is available since remedies for appellate review and certiorari are mutually exclusive.

The petition for Rule 65 was filed 51 days after the RTC’s order denying their motion for reconsideration, well beyond the 15-day reglementary period for an appeal.
Even if the CA were to treat the petition as an appeal, the timing rendered it infirm.

As a result, the CA dismissed the petition, affirming the prior decisions of the RTC.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition by holding that:

The petition was filed using the wrong remedy (i.e., certiorari instead of an appeal).
The petition was filed out of time, given that the appropriate appeal period of 15 days had lapsed.