Guzman v. Guzman

Facts:

Petitioner filed with MTC Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, Branch 4, a complaint for ejectment against her children, the respondents of this case. The petitioner alleged that she and Arnold N. Guzman owned the 6/7th and 1/7th portions, respectively, of a 1,446-square meter parcel of land, known as Lot No. 2419-B, in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan; the respondents occupied the land by tolerance; the respondents did not comply with her written demand to vacate the property; and subsequent barangay conciliation proceedings failed to settle the differences between them.

Respondents countered that the petitioner transferred all her property rights in the disputed property, except her usufructuary right, in favor of her children, and that the petitioner engaged in forum shopping since she already raised the issue of ownership in a petition for cancellation of adverse claim against the respondents, pending with Branch 4 of theRTC Tuguegarao City, Cagayan.

MTC found the petitioner to be the lawful owner of the land with a right to its possession since the respondents had no vested right to the land since they are merely the petitioner's children to whom no ownership or possessory rights have passed. It held that the petitioner committed no forum shopping since she asserted ownership only to establish her right of possession, and the lower courts can provisionally resolve the issue of ownership to determine who has the better right of possession. The MTC directed the respondents to vacate the land and surrender possession to the petitioner, and to pay P5,000.00 as monthly rental from January 2000 until possession is surrendered, plus P15,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages.

The respondents appealed to the RTC of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, Branch 1. They argued that: (a) the MTC had no jurisdiction over the case; (b) the petitioner has no cause of action against the respondents; (c) the petitioner engaged in forum shopping; and (d) the MTC erred in deciding the case in the petitioner's favor. Such arguments were rejected by the RTC, however, the court still ruled for the respondents and set aside the MTC ruling.

3 MRs were filed but was denied respectively.

Petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the CA but was dismissed.

Thus, the present Rule 45 petition.

Issue:

The case presents to us the issue of whether the CA committed a reversible error in dismissing the petitioner's petition for certiorari.

Held: 

The petition lacks merit.

The petitioner availed of the wrong remedy.

The petitioner's resort to a Rule 65 petition for certiorari to assail the RTC decision and orders is misplaced. When the RTC issued its decision and orders, it did so in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; the proper remedy therefrom is a Rule 42 petition for review. Instead, the petitioner filed a second MR and thereby lost her right to appeal; a second MR being a prohibited pleading pursuant to Section 5, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner's subsequent MR should be considered as mere scraps of paper, not having been filed at all, and unable to toll the reglementary period for an appeal.

The RTC decision became final and executory after fifteen (15) days from receipt of the denial of the first motion for reconsideration. It is elementary that once a decision becomes final and executory, it is "immutable and unalterable, and can no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land." Thus, the RTC decision, even if allegedly erroneous, can no longer be modified.