You are on page 1of 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.