Scribd
Upload
125 views1 page

Provost vs. CA, G.R. No. 160406, June 26, 2006

The Ramoses filed a complaint against the Provosts for recovery of ownership and possession of 314 square meters of land that the Provosts had allegedly encroached upon. The MTC dismissed the complaint, finding that the Ramoses failed to prove ownership and possession of the disputed land. The RTC affirmed this decision, stating the Ramoses' claim was based on a disapproved survey plan. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding error in the lower courts' judgments. The Supreme Court ruled that while a petition for certiorari was not the proper remedy in this case, it would hear the petition as one for review under Rule 45, as the case involved an error of judgment rather than jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

Caleb Josh Pacana
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
125 views1 page

Provost vs. CA, G.R. No. 160406, June 26, 2006

The Ramoses filed a complaint against the Provosts for recovery of ownership and possession of 314 square meters of land that the Provosts had allegedly encroached upon. The MTC dismissed the complaint, finding that the Ramoses failed to prove ownership and possession of the disputed land. The RTC affirmed this decision, stating the Ramoses' claim was based on a disapproved survey plan. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding error in the lower courts' judgments. The Supreme Court ruled that while a petition for certiorari was not the proper remedy in this case, it would hear the petition as one for review under Rule 45, as the case involved an error of judgment rather than jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

Caleb Josh Pacana
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Caleb Josh T.

Pacana
G.R. No. 160406 June 26, 2006
SPS. DOLORES MIRANDA PROVOST and JEAN PROVOST, Petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS and SPS. VICTOR RAMOS and FE A. RAMOS, Respondents.
Topic: Appeal from MTC order dismissing case
Ponente: QUISUMBING, J.
FACTS:
Private respondent Sps Ramos spouses filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and
possession with damages against Sps Provost alleging that Sps Provost encroached on 314
square meters of their lot Mambajao, Camiguin.
The MTC dismissed the complaint and held that the Ramoses failed to prove their ownership
and possession of the disputed area. On appeal, the RTC affirmed the MTC decision, stating that
the claim by the Ramoses over the property sought to be recovered was based on a
disapproved survey plan.The appellate court reversed the RTC decision
ISSUE:
WON Petitioner for Certiorari is the only remedy available.
RULING:
No, the SC ruled that the case involves an error of judgment and not of jurisdiction. Thus, a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is not proper. Nevertheless, we shall
give due course to the instant petition as one proper for review under Rule 45.

You might also like