Pizarro vs Court of Appeals Case Digest GR 31979 August 6, 1980

Pizarro vs Court of Appeals Case Digest 

GR 31979 ; August 6, 1980

PRINCIPLE/S:

Special Proceedings

a) Rescission Case is not under the jurisdiction of the Probate Court

- The rescission of a sale due to failure of the vendees to pay the full consideration is under the jurisdiction of the RTC and not the Probate Court.

Remedial Law

a) GR: Proper remedy from an Order of dismissal is an appeal

*Order of dismissal is final and appealable as it puts an end to litigation and leaves nothing more to be done on the merits in the lower Court.

Exceptions:

i) appeal is inadequate and ineffectual

ii) the broader interest of justice so requires

FACTS: Upon death Aurelio Pizarro Sr. he left his wife and children as heirs to his estate. Among his properties were parcels of land situated in Agdao, J. Palma Gill, and Claro M. Recto Streets. The court, upon agreement of the parties, appointed Corias as Administrator of the estate. The Administrator filed a Motion for Authority to Sell the said properties and later on a Motion for the approval of the conditional sale in order to settle the debts of the estate. The heirs opposed the Motion. But the Court approved the sale and denied heirs’ motion and their subsequent motion for reconsideration.

The heirs in a Motion prayed that Administrator Corias be asked to resign or be removed for having abused his powers and duties. They also filed a "Motion for Cancellation or Rescission of Conditional Contract of Sale" of the Agdao lot in favor of Angliongto. The Court denied rescission of the sale.

The heirs filed a verified Complaint for "Cancellation of Authority to Sell and Rescission and Annulment of Deed of Sale and Damages with Preliminary Injunction" (Civil Case No. 5762 - Recission case) against the Angliongto spouses, Administrator. Corias, Judge Bullecer, Atty. Salvador, et al. Petitioners contended inter alia that despite all their efforts to block the sale "the Administrator taking advantage of the name and influence of the presiding Judge" succeeded in inducing Angliongto to purchase the lot at a price allegedly much higher than the reported P12.00 per square meter; that the sale contained an impossible condition which was the ejectment of the tenants before a certain date; that there was connivance between the Administrator and the vendee with the knowledge of the Judge and Atty. Salvador; and that they had suffered actual and moral damages by reason of the sale. The defendants’ were predicated mainly on plaintiffs' lack of legal capacity to sue and lack of cause of action. The trial Court (respondent Judge Reyes presiding) dismissed the Rescission Case (Civil Case No. 5762) on the ground that it could not review the actuations of a coordinate

ISSUE/S:

1) WON Petition for Certiorari is the proper remedy from an order of dismissal

2) WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the Recission case

HELD:

1) NO. The general rule is that the proper remedy from an Order of dismissal is an appeal. An order of dismissal is final and appealable as it puts an end to litigation and leaves nothing more to be done on the merits in the lower Court, so that certiorari is ordinarily unavailable. But that general rule allows of exceptions namely, when appeal is inadequate and ineffectual or when the broader interest of justice so requires. 

In the instant case, appeal would not have afforded the heirs an effective and speedy recourse. The prompt stoppage of that sale was vital to them. Thus, appeal not being speedy enough to bring about the desired objective and to be of any utility to the heirs, their availment of certiorari must be held to have been proper.

2) YES. The rescission of a sale due to failure of the vendees to pay the full consideration, which is a valid ground for rescission, is under the jurisdiction of the RTC and not the Probate Court. Such cause of action is beyond the jurisdictional bounds of the Probate Court since its main province was the settlement of the estate. Hence the incumbent Judge of the Court of First Instance is hereby ordered to take cognizance of and hear and decide Civil Case No. 5762 as expeditiously as possible.