Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 146 views

    Tang VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    Aprille S. Alviarne
    This case involves a petition for certiorari filed by neighboring landowners Magdalita Tang and others challenging a probate court order granting a fencing permit. The probate court order allowed the administrator of the estate of Spouses Teodoro to fence lots that a city engineer had previously denied permitting for because they were considered street lots. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for certiorari, finding it was not the proper remedy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that only parties in the lower court proceedings can file a petition for certiorari, and since the petitioners were not parties there, they did not have standing to challenge the probate court order through certiorari.

    Copyright:

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

    Tang VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    Aprille S. Alviarne
    146 views1 page
    This case involves a petition for certiorari filed by neighboring landowners Magdalita Tang and others challenging a probate court order granting a fencing permit. The probate court order allowed the administrator of the estate of Spouses Teodoro to fence lots that a city engineer had previously denied permitting for because they were considered street lots. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for certiorari, finding it was not the proper remedy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that only parties in the lower court proceedings can file a petition for certiorari, and since the petitioners were not parties there, they did not have standing to challenge the probate court order through certiorari.

    Original Description:

    Remedial Law Review Case Digest

    Original Title

    TANG VS CA

    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 for certiorari filed by neighboring landowners Magdalita Tang and others challenging a probate court order granting a fencing permit. The probate court order allowed the administrator of the estate of Spouses Teodoro to fence lots that a city engineer had previously denied permitting for because they were considered street lots. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for certiorari, finding it was not the proper remedy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that only parties in the lower court proceedings can file a petition for certiorari, and since the petitioners were not parties there, they did not have standing to challenge the probate court order through certiorari.

    Copyright:

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

    Tang VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    Aprille S. Alviarne
    This case involves a petition for certiorari filed by neighboring landowners Magdalita Tang and others challenging a probate court order granting a fencing permit. The probate court order allowed the administrator of the estate of Spouses Teodoro to fence lots that a city engineer had previously denied permitting for because they were considered street lots. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for certiorari, finding it was not the proper remedy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that only parties in the lower court proceedings can file a petition for certiorari, and since the petitioners were not parties there, they did not have standing to challenge the probate court order through certiorari.

    Copyright:

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

    MAGDALITA Y. TANG, v CA G.R. No.

    117204 February 11, 2000

    PARTIES TO THE PETITION

    FACTS

    Respondent administrator of the estate of the Spouses Toribio Teodoro and Marta Teodoro sought to sell the subject
    lots to finally settle the estate. He applied with the Caloocan City Engineer for a permit to fence the lots. The City
    Engineer endorsed the application to the City Legal Officer, for appropriate action. The City Legal Officer, after
    concluding that the subject lots are street lots, recommended the denial of the fencing permit to the City
    Engineer.8 Accordingly, the City Engineer denied respondent administrator's application for a fencing permit. 1wphi 1.nt

    This predicament prompted respondent administrator to file a petition before the probate court to order the Caloocan
    City Engineer to issue the fencing permit for the subject lots. After hearing, the probate court issued an Order
    granting the petition.

    When petitioner Magdalita Tang, a neighboring lot owner, noticed that the subject lots were already being fenced, she
    questioned the Order of the probate court by filing a special civil action for certiorari with prayer for preliminary
    injunction before the Court of Appeals. She was joined by other petitioners.

    The Court of Appeals issued a resolution denying due course to the said petition on the ground that certiorariwas not
    the proper remedy for petitioners to annul and set aside the order of the lower court. MR was denied.

    Petitioners assert that since they were not parties in the proceedings before the probate court, they could not have
    possibly availed of the remedy of appeal so as to question the said order before the Court of Appeals. 16 Because of
    this, petitioners conclude that the only remedy available to them is the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65.

    ISSUE Whether or not the petitioners are the proper parties to file the special civil action of certiorari

    HELD

    No. The Court agrees with petitioners that the remedy of appeal under Rule 42 is not available to them since this
    mode of appeal can only be availed by one who was a party in the proceedings before the lower court. However, they
    are not also the proper parties to file the special civil action of certiorari.

    Although Section 1 of Rule 65 provides that the special civil action of certiorari may be availed of by a "person
    aggrieved" by the orders or decisions of a tribunal, the term "person aggrieved" is not to be construed to mean that
    any person who feels injured by the lower court's order or decision can question the said court's disposition
    via certiorari. To sanction a contrary interpretation would open the floodgates to numerous and endless litigations
    which would undeniably lead to the clogging of court dockets and, more importantly, the harassment of the party who
    prevailed in the lower court.

    In a situation wherein the order or decision being questioned underwent adversarial proceedings before a trial court,
    the "person aggrieved" referred to under Section 1 of Rule 65 who can avail of the special civil action
    of certioraripertains to one who was a party in the proceedings before the lower court. The correctness of this
    interpretation can be gleaned from the fact that a special civil action for certiorari may be dismissed motu proprio if
    the party elevating the case failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the questioned order or decision before the
    lower court.18Obviously, only one who was a party in the case before the lower court can file a motion for
    reconsideration since a stranger to the litigation would not have the legal standing to interfere in the orders or
    decisions of the said court. In relation to this, if a non-party in the proceedings before the lower court has no standing
    to file a motion for reconsideration, logic would lead us to the conclusion that he would likewise have no standing to
    question the said order or decision before the appellate court via certiorari.

    You might also like