Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 253 views

    Rayos Vs City of Manila Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ryan Suaverdez
    This case involves a petition assailing an order denying a motion to dismiss filed by petitioners in a land expropriation case brought by the City of Manila. The Supreme Court denies the petition. An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable, as it does not finally dispose of the case. The petitioners should have filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Even if filed under Rule 65, it would be dismissed for violating the hierarchy of courts, as petitions for certiorari should first be filed with the Court of Appeals, not directly with the Supreme Court. The petition merely rehashes arguments from the motion to dismiss

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rayos Vs City of Manila Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ryan Suaverdez
    253 views1 page
    This case involves a petition assailing an order denying a motion to dismiss filed by petitioners in a land expropriation case brought by the City of Manila. The Supreme Court denies the petition. An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable, as it does not finally dispose of the case. The petitioners should have filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Even if filed under Rule 65, it would be dismissed for violating the hierarchy of courts, as petitions for certiorari should first be filed with the Court of Appeals, not directly with the Supreme Court. The petition merely rehashes arguments from the motion to dismiss

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Rayos vs City of Manila Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a petition assailing an order denying a motion to dismiss filed by petitioners in a land expropriation case brought by the City of Manila. The Supreme Court denies the petition. An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable, as it does not finally dispose of the case. The petitioners should have filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Even if filed under Rule 65, it would be dismissed for violating the hierarchy of courts, as petitions for certiorari should first be filed with the Court of Appeals, not directly with the Supreme Court. The petition merely rehashes arguments from the motion to dismiss

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    253 views1 page

    Rayos Vs City of Manila Digest

    Uploaded by

    Ryan Suaverdez
    This case involves a petition assailing an order denying a motion to dismiss filed by petitioners in a land expropriation case brought by the City of Manila. The Supreme Court denies the petition. An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable, as it does not finally dispose of the case. The petitioners should have filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Even if filed under Rule 65, it would be dismissed for violating the hierarchy of courts, as petitions for certiorari should first be filed with the Court of Appeals, not directly with the Supreme Court. The petition merely rehashes arguments from the motion to dismiss

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    RAYOS VS. CITY OF MANILA G.R. NO. 196063, DEC.

    14, 2011 (CONCURRENT JURISDICTION)


    STATEMENT OF THE CASE
    This petition, captioned as a petition for review on certiorari and declaratory relief, assails the Order of 6 Jan. 2011
    of the RTC of Manila, Branch 49, denying the reconsideration of the trial courts Order of 11 March 2010 which denied
    the motion to dismiss filed by petitioners Orlando A. Rayos, Fe A. Rayos Dela Paz, and Engr. Manuel A. Rayos.
    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
    In its Complaint, the City of Manila alleged that it passed Ordinance No 7949 authorizing the City Mayor to acquire
    by expropriation, negotiation or by any other legal means the parcel of land co-owned by defendants.
    In their answer, defendants conveyed their willingness to sell the property to the City but at a price which they
    claim as a fair market value of the land at the time.
    In the course of the proceedings, Laureano, one of the defendants, died on Dec. 1 2003 and was substituted by
    his son petitioner Manuel Rayos, Meanwhile, petitioner Orlando A. Rayos intervened while petitioner Fe A. Rayos
    Dela Paz was added as a defendant.
    The petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the ordinance was unconstitutional and stare
    decisis.
    On Mar. 11, 2010, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss stating that the argument of Stare Decisis was not
    convincing since they failed to prove the similarity of the facts.
    The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration.
    STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE/S
    Is a motion to dismiss is appealable?
    RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT
    Petition denied.
    An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory and not appealable. An order denying a motion to dismiss
    does not finally dispose of the case, and in effect, allows the case to proceed until the final adjudication thereof by
    the court. It is merely interlocutory and thus not appealable (Section 1, Rule 41, Rules of Court)
    Since the trial courts order denying the motion to dismiss is not appealable, petitioners should have filed a
    petitioner for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and not a review on certiorari under Rule 45. Thus, the
    petition deserves outright dismissal.
    And even if they file under Rule 65, the same must be dismissed for violation of the principle of hierarchy of
    courts. This well-settled principle dictates that petitioners should file the petition for certiorari with the CA, and not
    directly with the SC.
    It is true that the SC, CA and the RTC exercise concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition and
    mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction but such concurrent jurisdiction does not give petitioners
    unbridled freedom of choice of court forum.
    A direct invocation of Supreme Courts original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there
    are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.
    Petitioners merely rehashed the arguments in their motion to dismiss, which consist mainly of unsubstantiated
    allegations.
    Likewise, assuming the present petition is one for declaratory relief, as can be gleaned from the caption of the
    petition, this Court has only appeallate, not original, jurisdiction over such a petition.

    You might also like