The Supreme Court has rejected the bid of a doctor-developer to have a long-time partner of a former Armed Forces chief evicted from a disputed Forbes mansion after he failed to comply with the doctrine of hierarchy of court.
The high court’s Second Division denied the petition filed by Daniel Vasquez seeking the Court’s immediate intervention to expel Edna Camcam, the long-time partner of the late former Armed Forces Chief Fabian Ver, from the property in compliance with the ruling of the Regional Trial Court of Makati and the Court of Appeals declaring him as the real owner of the mansion.
“After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to dismiss instant petition filed by petitioner Dr. Daniel E. Vasquez for violation of the doctrine of hierarchy of court,” the high tribunal said.
While, the high court, the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court have concurrence of jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, the high court said Vasquez cannot just choose which among the courts his certiorari petition should be filed.
“Instead, a becoming regard for judicial hierarchy dictates that petitions for the issuance of writs of certiorari against first-level court should be filed with the RTC, and those against the latter, with the CA, before resort may be filed before this Court,” the high court said, citing Section 4, Rules 65 of the Rules of Court.
“A direct invocation of the Court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons, therefore, clearly and specifically set out in the petition, which are absent in this case,” the SC resolution read.
The tribunal said the trial court’s decision to deny Vasquez’s motion to transmit records of the case was premature.
The high court said the trial court cannot transmit the records of the case before the High Tribunal considering that Camcam timely filed a motion for partial reconsideration and is still pending before the CA.
“Settled is the rule that if a motion for reconsideration (including a partial motion for reconsideration) is timely filed by the proper party, the execution of the CA’s judgment or final resolution shall be stayed," the high court ruled.
Because of this, the high court said the pendency of Camcam’s motion for reconsideration stayed the Feb. 24, 2017 decision of the appellate court.
In that decision, the CA set aside the decision issued by the Regional Trial Court Branch 66 of Makati City on Feb. 10, 2014, which declared Vasquez as the rightful possessor of the subject property.
He said it was the Metropolitan Trial Court which has jurisdiction over the said property being an unlawful detainer case, thus, the RTC should not have decided on the merits of the case.
The CA also directed that the case be remanded to the RTC for further proceedings.
Prior to the controversy, Vasquez claimed that Ver asked him to provide Camcam and her children a home as they were returning to the Philippines from exile.
Being Ver’s long-time friend, Vasquez offered the Forbes Park mansion which was acquired from the United Coconut Planters Bank through Benjamin Bitanga.
On Sept. 27, 1994, Bitanga executed a Sale with the Right of Repurchase over the property in favor of Vasquez.
Camcam on the same day issued the guaranty declaring Vasquez as the owner.
In their quest to wrest control of the property, Camcam and Bitanga questioned the original sale of the property from UCPB to Bitanga and then to Vasquez.
They said the real intention was to enter into a loan transaction and not a sale.
The lower did not buy the argument and said the two did not even bother to annul the document, taking cognizance of Camcam’s claim that she was a veteran banker and an expert in mortgage transactions.
