You are on page 1of 2

Facts: In October 2000, petitioner filed before the RTC of

Muntinlupa City a Complaint for Collection and Declaration of

ullity of Deed of !bsolute "ale #ith application for In$unction
a%ainst her o#n son, herein respondent, and one If&al !li'
(etitioner alle%ed that respondent leased a parcel of land that
they co)o#ned to If&al in Dasmarinas *illa%e and that
respondent declared that he is the sole o#ner of the said parcel
of land' Respondent immediately filed a Motion to Dismiss on
the sole %round that the +enue of the case #as improperly laid'
,e stressed that #hile the complaint #as denominated as one for
Collection and Declaration of ullity of Deed of !bsolute "ale
#ith application for In$unction, in truth the case #as a real
action affectin% title to and interest o+er the sub$ect property'
"ince the sub$ect property is located in Ma-ati City, respondent
ar%ued that petitioner should ha+e filed the case before the RTC
of Ma-ati City and not of Muntinlupa City' The RTC denied the
Motion to Dismiss of the respondent on .anuary 2, 200/'
,o#e+er, on !pril 20, 2000, the RTC dismissed the case for #ant
of $urisdiction because the case should ha+e been filed in RTC
Ma-ati' (etitioner filed an MR #hich #as denied' ,ence, this
Issue: Whether or not petitioners Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45, in relation to Rule 41, of the Rules of Civil Procedure
on alleged pure questions of law directly filed to the SC is the proper
reedy in the case at !ar"
,eld: # question of law arises when there is dou!t as to what the
law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact
when the dou!t arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts"
Petitioner prayed to the Supree Court to decide the case on the
erits" $o do so, however, would require the e%aination !y this
Court of the pro!ative value of the evidence presented, ta&ing into
account the fact that the R$C failed to ad'udicate this controversy on
the erits" $his, unfortunately, the Supree Court cannot do" (t thus
!ecoes e%ceedingly clear that the filing of the case directly with
the Supree Court ran afoul of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts"
Pursuant to this doctrine, direct resort fro the lower courts to the
Supree Court will not !e entertained unless the appropriate reedy
sought cannot !e o!tained in the lower tri!unals" $his Court is a
court of last resort, and ust so reain if it is to satisfactorily
perfor the functions assigned to it !y the Constitution and !y
ieorial tradition"