THIRD DIVISION dated March 10, 2003, the RTC dismissed the petition, nding no grave abuse of

discretion on the part of the MeTC Presiding Judge. The RTC sustained the MeTC
[G.R. No. 164560. July 22, 2009.] ruling, stating that, in accordance with Section 33 (3) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7691,
amending B.P. Blg. 129, the MeTC had jurisdiction over the complaint for Accion
Reivindicatoria, as it involves recovery of ownership and possession of real property
ANA DE GUIA SAN PEDRO and ALEJO DOPEÑO , petitioners, vs . HON.
located in Quezon City, with an assessed value not exceeding P50,000.00. A Motion for
FATIMA G. ASDALA, in her capacity as the Presiding Judge of the
Reconsideration 6 of the Decision was led by petitioners, but was denied in an Order 7
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 87; HON. MANUEL
dated July 3, 2003.
TARO, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan
aCTcDS

Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 42; and the HEIRS OF SPOUSES Petitioners then led with the Court of Appeals another petition for certiorari,
APOLONIO V. DIONISIO and VALERIANA DIONISIO (namely, ALLAN insisting that both the MeTC and RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting
GEORGE R. DIONISIO and ELEANOR R. DIONISIO, herein represented to lack or excess of jurisdiction by not ordering the dismissal of the complaint for
by ALLAN GEORGE R. DIONISIO) , respondents. Accion Reivindicatoria, for lack of jurisdiction over the same. In the assailed CA
Resolution dated September 15, 2003, the CA dismissed the petition outright, holding
that certiorari was not available to petitioners as they should have availed themselves
DECISION of the remedy of appeal. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the resolution of
dismissal was denied per Resolution 8 dated June 1, 2004.
Thus, petitioners filed the instant petition and, in support thereof, they allege that:
PERALTA , J : p

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF

This resolves the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN (SIC) EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN
praying that the Resolutions 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated September 15, 2003 DENYING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND FOR FAILURE TO RESOLVE THE
and June 1, 2004, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 78978, be reversed and set aside. ISSUE RAISED IN THE CERTIORARI REGARDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF A CASE OF ACCION
The antecedent facts are as follows. REINVINDICATORIA.
Sometime in July 2001, private respondents, heirs of spouses Apolonio and THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT FATIMA GONZALES-ASDALA, AS
Valeriana Dionisio, led with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City, Branch PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC BRANCH 87, QUEZON CITY, ACTED WITH GRAVE
42, a Complaint 2 against herein petitioners and Wood Crest Residents Association, ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF (SIC)
Inc., for Accion Reivindicatoria, Quieting of Title and Damages, with Prayer for JURISDICTION IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND IN
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. Private respondents alleged that subject property RESOLVING THAT A CASE OF ACCION REINVINDICATORIA IS WITHIN THE
located in Batasan Hills, Quezon City, with an assessed value of P32,100.00, was titled JURISDICTION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT.
in the name of spouses Apolonio and Valeriana Dionisio; but petitioners, with malice
and evident bad faith, claimed that they were the owners of a parcel of land that THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT MANUEL TARO AS PRESIDING JUDGE
encompasses and covers subject property. Private respondents had allegedly been MeTC, BRANCH 42, QUEZON CITY, ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
prevented from entering, possessing and using subject property. It was further alleged AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN (SIC) EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN SO TAKING
in the Complaint that petitioners' Transfer Certi cate of Title over their alleged property COGNIZANCE OF THE COMPLAINT FOR ACCION REINVINDICATORIA IN CIVIL
CASE NO. 27434 ENTITLED, "HEIRS OF SPS. APOLONIO V. DIONISIO AND
was spurious. Private respondents then prayed that they be declared the sole and
VALERIANA DIONISIO, ETC. VS. ANA DE GUIA SAN PEDRO, ET. AL." 9
absolute owners of the subject property; that petitioners be ordered to surrender
possession of subject property to them; that petitioners and Wood Crest and/or its The present Petition for Certiorari is doomed and should not have been
members be ordered to pay actual and moral damages, and attorney's fees. entertained from the very beginning.
Petitioners, for their part, led a Motion to Dismiss 3 said complaint on the The settled rule is that appeals from judgments or nal orders or resolutions of
ground that the MeTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, as the the CA should be by a veri ed petition for review on certiorari, as provided for under
subject of litigation was incapable of pecuniary estimation. Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, in Pasiona, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,
1 0 the Court expounded as follows:
The MeTC then issued an Order 4 dated July 4, 2002 denying the motion to
dismiss, ruling that, under Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 129, as amended, the MeTC had The aggrieved party is proscribed from assailing a decision or nal order
exclusive original jurisdiction over actions involving title to or possession of real of the CA via Rule 65, because such recourse is proper only if the party has no
property of small value. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration of said Order dated plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law. In this case, petitioner
July 4, 2002 was denied. had an adequate remedy, namely, a petition for review on certiorari
Petitioners assailed the aforementioned Order by ling a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. A petition for review on certiorari,
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 87. However, in its Decision 5 not a special civil action for certi ora ri was, therefore, the correct
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 remedy . merit. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 78978, dated
September 15, 2003 and June 1, 2004, are AFFIRMED.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED .
Settled is the rule that where appeal is available to the aggrieved party, the
special civil action for certiorari will not be entertained — remedies of appeal and Ynares-Santiago, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr. and Nachura, JJ., concur.
certiorari are mutually exclusive, not alternative or successive. Hence, certiorari
is not and cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal , especially if one's own
negligence or error in one's choice of remedy occasioned such loss or lapse. One Footnotes
of the requisites of certiorari is that there be no available appeal or any plain,
speedy and adequate remedy. Where an appeal was available, as in this 1. Penned by Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis, with Associate Justices Jose L.
case, certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave Sabio, Jr. and Hakim S. Abdulwahid, concurring; rollo, pp. 27 & 29.
abuse of discretion. Petitioner's resort to this Court by Petition for Certiorari
was a fatal procedural error, and the instant petition must, therefore, fail. 1 1 2. Rollo, pp. 37-48.

For the very same reason given above, the CA, therefore, acted properly when it 3. Id. at 78-84.
dismissed the petition for certiorari outright, on the ground that petitioners should have 4. Id. at 99-100.
resorted to the remedy of appeal instead of certiorari. Verily, the present Petition for
Certiorari should not have been given due course at all. 5. Penned by Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala; id. at 194-195.
Moreover, since the period for petitioners to le a petition for review on certiorari 6. Rollo, pp. 196-199.
had lapsed by the time the instant petition was led, the assailed CA Resolutions have
attained finality. SADECI
7. Id. at 255.

Nevertheless, just to put the matter to rest, the Court reiterates the ruling in Heirs 8. Id. at 29.
of Valeriano S. Concha, Sr. v. Spouses Lumocso, 1 2 to wit:
9. Id. at 14-15.
In a number of cases, we have held that actions for reconveyance of or for
10. G.R. No. 165471, July 21, 2008, 559 SCRA 137, citing Iloilo La Filipina Uycongco
cancellation of title to or to quiet title over real property are actions that fall under
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 539 SCRA 178, (2007).
the classi cation of cases that involve "title to, or possession of, real property, or
any interest therein." 11. Id. at 151-142. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied).
xxx xxx xxx 12. G.R. No. 158121, December 21, 2007, 540 SCRA 1.
. . . Thus, under the old law, there was no substantial effect on jurisdiction 13. Id. at 16-18. (Emphasis supplied).
whether a case is one, the subject matter of which was incapable of pecuniary
estimation, under Section 19(1) of B.P. 129, or one involving title to property under
Section 19(2). The distinction between the two classes became crucial with the
amendment introduced by R.A. No. 7691 in 1994, which expanded the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the rst level courts to include "all civil actions which
involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the
assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed
Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro
Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind,
attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs ." Thus, under the present
law, original jurisdiction over cases the subject matter of which
involves "title to, possession of, real property or any interest therein"
under Section 19(2) of B.P. 129 is divided between the rst and second
level courts, with the assessed value of the real property involved as the
benchmark . This amendment was introduced to "unclog the overloaded dockets
of the RTCs which would result in the speedier administration of justice." 1 3

Clearly, the RTC and the CA ruled correctly that the MeTC had jurisdiction over
private respondents' complaint for Accion Reivindicatoria.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DISMISSED for utter lack of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com