8/3/2019 Digested, Chua v. CA

1/2

Chua v. Court of Appeals, 344 SCRA 136

Facts:

Fernando B. Morada was the original owner of the disputed lot. After

his death, the probate court appointed Aida, his wife, as administratrix of herhusbands estate. The probate court allowed the sale of the lot to privaterespondent Sofia Sanchez for one million pesos. Intervenor Sagrario Morelesfiled a motion for reconsideration opposing the sale alleging that the salewas prejudicial to the minor heirs of Fernando. He claimed that the landcould sold for P1.5 million pesos. Atty. Federico Cabilao, another intervenorwho represented undisclosed clients interested to purchase the land. Duringthe conference, Atty. Cabilao revealed that he offered P2 million pesos forthe lot. Judge Abarquez approved the proposal of Atty. Cabilao to purchasethe property and at the same time issued an order revoking his approval ofthe sale and declared void and without effect the deed of absolute sale he

had earlier approved with respondent Sofia Sanchez. Sanchez filed a motionfor reconsideration and made a counter-offer but her motion was denied bythe court.

After more than six months had elapsed since her receipt of the ordercomplained of and after more the five months after said order was certifiedas final and executor, Sanchez filed a petition for certiorari under rule 65before the Court of Appeals alleging that respondent Judges Abarquez andAlio-Hormachelos abused their discretion amounting to lack of jurisdictionwhen they issued the questioned orders. The appellate court granted thepetition and the Deed of Absolute Sale in her favor was affirmed and

reinstated, hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not petition for certiorari filed with the CA was alreadytime-barred therefore should not be taken cognizance by the Court.

Held:

Petition denied.

A special civil action for certiorari challenging the RTC with graveabuse of discretion may be instituted either in the Court of Appeals or the

Supreme Court. Both have original concurrent jurisdiction.19 Certiorari is anextraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal, nor any plain,speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. While ordinarily,certiorari is unavailing where the appeal period has lapsed, there areexceptions. Among them are (a) when public welfare and the advancementof public policy dictates; (b) when the broader interest of justice sorequires;21 (c) when the writs issued are null and void; (d) or when thequestioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.

8/3/2019 Digested, Chua v. CA

2/2

The questioned orders of the probate court nullifying the sale toSanchez after it approved the sale and after its order of approval hadbecome final and executory amount to oppressive exercise of judicialauthority, a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

Further orders stemming therefrom are also null and without effect.