Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 86 views

    Rayos V City of Manila Digest

    Uploaded by

    caaam823
    1) The City of Manila filed a complaint for eminent domain against petitioners regarding a parcel of land owned by petitioners. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of unconstitutionality of the ordinance and applicability of prior cases, which the trial court denied. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that the petition for review violated the hierarchy of courts principle and should have been filed with the Court of Appeals, not directly with the Supreme Court. 3) The Supreme Court also ruled that the order denying the motion to dismiss was not appealable as it was an interlocutory order, not a final adjudication, and a special civil action for certiorari was the proper remedy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    Rayos V City of Manila Digest

    Uploaded by

    caaam823
    86 views2 pages
    1) The City of Manila filed a complaint for eminent domain against petitioners regarding a parcel of land owned by petitioners. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of unconstitutionality of the ordinance and applicability of prior cases, which the trial court denied. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that the petition for review violated the hierarchy of courts principle and should have been filed with the Court of Appeals, not directly with the Supreme Court. 3) The Supreme Court also ruled that the order denying the motion to dismiss was not appealable as it was an interlocutory order, not a final adjudication, and a special civil action for certiorari was the proper remedy.

    Original Description:

    hierarchy of courts

    Original Title

    Rayos v 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?

    Report this Document
    1) The City of Manila filed a complaint for eminent domain against petitioners regarding a parcel of land owned by petitioners. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of unconstitutionality of the ordinance and applicability of prior cases, which the trial court denied. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that the petition for review violated the hierarchy of courts principle and should have been filed with the Court of Appeals, not directly with the Supreme Court. 3) The Supreme Court also ruled that the order denying the motion to dismiss was not appealable as it was an interlocutory order, not a final adjudication, and a special civil action for certiorari was the proper remedy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    86 views2 pages

    Rayos V City of Manila Digest

    Uploaded by

    caaam823
    1) The City of Manila filed a complaint for eminent domain against petitioners regarding a parcel of land owned by petitioners. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of unconstitutionality of the ordinance and applicability of prior cases, which the trial court denied. 2) The Supreme Court ruled that the petition for review violated the hierarchy of courts principle and should have been filed with the Court of Appeals, not directly with the Supreme Court. 3) The Supreme Court also ruled that the order denying the motion to dismiss was not appealable as it was an interlocutory order, not a final adjudication, and a special civil action for certiorari was the proper remedy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Rayos v.

    City of Manila

    Facts:
    Respondent City of Manila filed a complaint for eminent domain against
    petitioners. City of Manila passed Ordinance No. 7949 authorizing the City Mayor
    to acquire “by expropriation, negotiation or by any other legal means a parcel of
    land co-owned by defendants. Petitioners conveyed their willingness to sell the
    property, but at the price of P 50,000 per square meter.
    On December 7, 2009 petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that 1)
    Ordinance No. 7949 is unconstitutional, and 2) the cases of Lagcao v. Libra and
    JILCSFI v. Municipality of Pasig apply squarely to the present case.
    The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. It ruled that the motion did not show
    any compelling reason of stare decisis, viz the cases they cited, applies to the case
    at hand. Petitioners then filed with the Supreme Court this petition for review on
    certiorari and declaratory relief reiterating the same arguments.

    Issues:
    1. Whether the petition for review violates the principle of hierarchy of courts
    2. Whether or not the order denying the motion to dismiss is appealable?

    Ruling:
    1. Yes. This present petition for review violates the principle of hierarchy of
    courts.

    The hierarchy of courts is determinative of the venue of appeals, and also


    serves as a general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the
    extraordinary writs. This principle indicates that petitions for the issuance of
    extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed with the RTC,
    and those against the latter, with the Court of Appeals. A direct invocation of
    the Supreme Court’s 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.
    This policy is necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court’s
    time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its
    exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent further over-crowding of the Court’s
    docket.

    The principle of hierarchy of courts dictates that petitioners should file the
    petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, and not directly with this
    Court.

    2. No. The order denying the motion to dismiss is not appealable since it is an
    interlocutory order.

    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. As such, it is merely interlocutory in nature and thus, not
    appealable. In case of denial of an interlocutory order, the immediate remedy
    available to the aggrieved party is to file a special civil action for certiorari
    under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

    You might also like