G.R. No. L-11201 - MAY 1957 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-11201May 31, 1957 Cirila Nocon vs. Francisco Geronimo, et al. G.R. No. L-10304May 31, 1957 Sun Un Giok vs. Hermogenes Matusa, et al. G.R. Nos. L-9738 and L-9771May 31, 1957 Blas Gutierrez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Blas Gutierrez, et al. G.R. No. L-9159May 31, 1957 Felipe Quirino vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. G.R. No. L-8894May 31, 1957 Maria Matias de Bautista vs. Jose Teodoro, Jr. G.R. No. L-7995May 31, 1957 Lao H. Inchiong vs. Jaime Hernandez, et al. G.R. No. L-10807May 30, 1957 Vitaliano M. Cruz vs. City of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-9683May 30, 1957 In Re: Quezon Ong Tan. Quezon Ong Tan vs. Republic G.R. No. L-10710May 29, 1957 Luzon Surety Company, Inc. vs. Jose Teodoro, Sr., et al. G.R. No. L-10664May 29, 1957 Cristobal Cayabyab vs. Luis T. Cayabyab G.R. No. L-10594May 29, 1957 Ponciano Primero vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-10150May 29, 1957 Firestone Tire & Rubber Company of the Phil. vs. Vicente Tupas, et al. G.R. No. L-9960May 29, 1957 Rosita Arcas de Marcaida vs. Philippine Education Co. G.R. No. L-9888May 29, 1957 Grady Edward Johnson vs. Commissioner of Immigration G.R. No. L-9858May 29, 1957 In Re: Ong Son Cui.Ong Son Cui vs. Republic G.R. No. L-9775May 29, 1957 City of Bacolod, et al. vs. Eduardo D. Enriquez, et al. G.R. No. L-9659May 29, 1957 People of the Phil. vs. Valeriano M. Valensoy G.R. No. L-9224May 29, 1957 Dy Suat Hong vs. Republic G.R. No. L-9193May 29, 1957 Eugenio Perez vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-9007May 29, 1957 Gregorio Furia vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-8298May 29, 1957 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Garcia G.R. No. L-10823May 28, 1957 Juan G. Rodriguez, et al. vs. Enrique A. Fernandez, et al. G.R. No. L-10789May 28, 1957 Amador Tajanlangit, et al. vs. Southern Motors, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-10427May 27, 1957 Eulogio Mill vs. People of the Phil., et al. G.R. No. L-10213May 27, 1957 Perfecto Dimayuga, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-9625May 27, 1957 People of the Phil. vs. Francisca Celis G.R. No. L-9789May 25, 1957 Fernando E. Ricafort vs. Wenceslao L. Fernan, et al. G.R. No. L-10793May 24, 1957 Manila Terminal Co., Inc. vs. Jesus O. Hiponia, et al. G.R. No. L-9641May 24, 1957 Wack Wack Golf & Country Club, Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-9558May 24, 1957 Leoncio Monge, et al. vs. Lino Angeles, et al. G.R. No. L-9912May 23, 1957 Romulo Cuyo vs. City Mayor, Baguio City, et al. G.R. No. L-9656May 23, 1957 In Re: Chang Kim Timoteo Vergel de Dios vs. Republic G.R. No. L-9448May 23, 1957 Baselides Marcelo, et al. vs. Philippine National Red Cross, et al. G.R. No. L-8987May 23, 1957 Japanese War Notes Claimants Assoc. of the Phil., Inc. vs. Securities & Exchange Commission G.R. No. L-8848-58May 23, 1957 People of the Philippines vs. John Canson, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-8721May 23, 1957 Tranquilino Cachero vs. Manila Yellow Taxicab Co.,Inc. G.R. No. L-9997May 22, 1957 Ricardo Cua vs. Board of Immigration Commissioner G.R. No. L-9911May 22, 1957 In Re: Marieta Durang-Parang. Priscila Durang-Parang Jimenez vs. Republic G.R. No. L-9626May 22, 1957 People of the Phil. vs. Arnulfo Alvarez G.R. No. L-8886May 22, 1957 A. Soriano Y Cia vs. Collector of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-9353May 21, 1957 Manila Surety and Fidelity, Inc. vs. Batu Construction and Company, et al. G.R. No. L-10759May 20, 1957 Leonardo Montes vs. Civil Service Board of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-9736May 20, 1957 Pangasinan Transportation Company, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-9350May 20, 1957 Cebu Port Labor Union vs. States Marine Corporation, et al. G.R. No. L-9080May 18, 1957 In Re: Tan Somg Sin.Tan Somg Sin vs. La Republica de Filipinas G.R. No. L-10760May 17, 1957 Ly Giok Ha vs. Emilio L. Galang, et al. G.R. No. L-9439May 17, 1957 Candido Buena vs. Jose T. Surtida, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Cirila Nocon vs. Francisco Geronimo, et al. Sun Un Giok vs. Hermogenes Matusa, et al. Blas Gutierrez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Blas Gutierrez, et al. Felipe Quirino vs. Philippine National Bank, et al. Maria Matias de Bautista vs. Jose Teodoro, Jr. Lao H. Inchiong vs. Jaime Hernandez, et al. Vitaliano M. Cruz vs. City of Manila, et al. In Re: Quezon Ong Tan. Quezon Ong Tan vs. Republic Luzon Surety Company, Inc. vs. Jose Teodoro, Sr., et al. Cristobal Cayabyab vs. Luis T. Cayabyab Ponciano Primero vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, et al. Firestone Tire & Rubber Company of the Phil. vs. Vicente Tupas, et al. Rosita Arcas de Marcaida vs. Philippine Education Co. Grady Edward Johnson vs. Commissioner of Immigration In Re: Ong Son Cui.Ong Son Cui vs. Republic City of Bacolod, et al. vs. Eduardo D. Enriquez, et al. People of the Phil. vs. Valeriano M. Valensoy Dy Suat Hong vs. Republic Eugenio Perez vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. Gregorio Furia vs. Court of Appeals People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Garcia Juan G. Rodriguez, et al. vs. Enrique A. Fernandez, et al. Amador Tajanlangit, et al. vs. Southern Motors, Inc., et al. Eulogio Mill vs. People of the Phil., et al. Perfecto Dimayuga, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. People of the Phil. vs. Francisca Celis Fernando E. Ricafort vs. Wenceslao L. Fernan, et al. Manila Terminal Co., Inc. vs. Jesus O. Hiponia, et al. Wack Wack Golf & Country Club, Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Leoncio Monge, et al. vs. Lino Angeles, et al. Romulo Cuyo vs. City Mayor, Baguio City, et al. In Re: Chang Kim Timoteo Vergel de Dios vs. Republic Baselides Marcelo, et al. vs. Philippine National Red Cross, et al. Japanese War Notes Claimants Assoc. of the Phil., Inc. vs. Securities & Exchange Commission People of the Philippines vs. John Canson, Jr., et al. Tranquilino Cachero vs. Manila Yellow Taxicab Co.,Inc. Ricardo Cua vs. Board of Immigration Commissioner In Re: Marieta Durang-Parang. Priscila Durang-Parang Jimenez vs. Republic People of the Phil. vs. Arnulfo Alvarez A. Soriano Y Cia vs. Collector of Internal Revenue Manila Surety and Fidelity, Inc. vs. Batu Construction and Company, et al. Leonardo Montes vs. Civil Service Board of Appeals, et al. Pangasinan Transportation Company, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Cebu Port Labor Union vs. States Marine Corporation, et al. In Re: Tan Somg Sin.Tan Somg Sin vs. La Republica de Filipinas Ly Giok Ha vs. Emilio L. Galang, et al. Candido Buena vs. Jose T. Surtida, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-11201             May 31, 1957

CIRILA NOCON, as executrix of the Testate Estate of the late Andrea Nocon,petitioner,
vs.
HON. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cavite, HEIRS OF CELEDONIA TOLEDO (except Roque Dulce), HEIRS OF NICOLAS TOLEDO and HEIRS OF JUAN TOLEDO,respondents.

Ramon C. Aquino and Teofilo Pugeda for petitioner.
Nicetas A. Suanes for respondents.

FELIXJ.:

The properties involved herein were the alleged conjugal properties of the late spouses Simon Toledo and Andrea Nocon. The husband predeceased the wife and after the latter's death on July 19, 1955, testamentary proceedings were instituted on August 5, 1955, testamentary proceedings were instituted on August 5, 1955, in the Court of First Instance of Cavite (Special Proceedings No. 5743), wherein petitioner Cirila Nocon was appointed administratix thereof. The wills of Andrea Nocon and the order probating the same appear on record as Annexes A, A-1 and B.

While said testamentary proceedings were pending, as they are still pending, or specifically in September, 1955, respondent heirs of Celedonia, Jacinta, Silvina, Nicolas and Juan, surnamed Toledo, claiming to be heirs of the deceased husband Simon Toledo, filed an action against herein petitioner Cirila Nocon as executrix of the estate of Andrea Nocon, deceased wife of the late Simon Toledo, and the spouses Melquides Grepo and Encarnacion Villanueva, (Civil Case No. 5755 of the Court of First Instance of Cavite — Annex C) seeking partition of the alleged conjugal assets of the late spouses Simon Toledo and Andrea Nocon and praying that defendants be ordered to make an inventory and accounting of all the fruits of the properties beginning with the year 1950 and to deliver to the plaintiffs not only the shares corresponding fruits, with interests from the date they were gathered, and the reimburse the plaintiffs for their actual expenses (of litigation and attorney's fees) equivalent to 1/3 of the share corresponding to them, plus moral, nominal, moderate and exemplary damages in an amount not less than P5,000.00, plus any other lawful, just and equitable relief to which they may be entitled in the premises. The defendant spouses were sued in said case No. 5755 because the late Andrea Nocon, without the knowledge and consent of plaintiff heirs of the aforementioned Toledos, sold on November 28, 1954, to said spouses lot No. 2285 mentioned in the will (Annex A).

Defendant Cirila Nocon and her codefendant spouses answered that complaint, setting the affirmative defenses that plaintiffs' complaint states no cause of action and that they had another remedy, and a counterclaim in the sum of P3,000.00. In that answer, dated October 21, 1955, defendants denied that the disputed properties were conjugal, emphasizing that they were the exclusive or separate properties of the deceased wife Andrea Nocon, and further alleging that plaintiff heirs of Simon Toledo had "absolutely no right nor any interest of any kind in the properties listed in Annex A of the complaint."

On June 30, 1956, defendant Cirila Nocon, as the duly appointed and qualified executrix of the testate estate of the late Andrea Nocon, filed a motion to dismiss (Annex D), alleging in substance (1) that the properties inventoried in said testate proceedings as constituting the estate of the late Andrea Nocon are the very same properties which the herein nameless plaintiffs desire to partition in said case 5755, and (2) that under Act No. 3176 amending Section 685 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 2, Rule 75, of the Rules of Court, the conjugal partnership should be liquidated either in an ordinary partition action or in the corresponding administration proceeding for the settlement of the estate of either spouse, and prayed that the complaint be dismissed. Upon objection of the plaintiffs on the ground (1) that the answer of the defendants put in issue the question of title of the properties mentioned in, the will (Annex A); and (2) that when the question of title to property is raised the same should be determined in ordinary action and not in probate proceedings, and this whether or not the property is alleged to belong to the estate (Ongsiako, et al.vs.Tan, et al., 97 Phil., 330; Santiagovs.CFI of Rizal, 55 Phil. 62; and Devesavs.Arbes, 13 Phil. 273. and other case), the Court, by order of July 14, 1956 overruled the motion to dismiss for not being well founded. The motion for reconsideration of this order (Annex E) was also denied.

Because of these two orders and claiming that the trial Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction and with give abuse of discretion in not dismissing the partition suit filed by respondents Toledo in Civil Case No. 5755; that his order denying petitioner's motion to dismiss is contrary to settled rulings of this Court; that respondent Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the partition suit while the said testamentary proceedings for the settlement of the wife's estate are pending; that there can be no partition in a separate action such as in Civil Case No. 5755 because what can be partitioned only is theremente liquido, and this net remainder can only be determined in the testamentary proceedings; that partition and liquidation of the supposed conjugal partnership are required by law to be effected in the testamentary proceedings; and that the trial Court acted in a manner which is not in accord with the applicable decisions of this Court, when it did not dismiss the separate action for partition, and further claiming that she has no adequate and speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law, the petitioner executrix prays that the orders of respondent Judge denying petitioner's motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. 5755 of the Cavite Court of First Instance be set aside with costs against respondent heirs of said Toledos.

Considering the foregoing narration of facts and without going into the merits of the main issue of these proceedings, it seems evident that petitioner's present recourse ofcertioraridoes not lie.

Rule 67 of the Rules of Court provides:

So that where an appeal is in itself a sufficient and adequate remedy that would promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects of the order or judgment complained of, the existence of that appeal would bar the institution of the remedy ofcertiorari. In the case at bar, if executrix Cirila Nocon, defendant in said Civil Case No. 5755, was not agreeable to the order of the Court refusing to dismiss the complaint filed against her and the spouses Grepo, she should have submitted herself for trial and let the lower Court render decision in the case and then appeal therefrom if she were not satisfied with the outcome of the same. In that case the lower court had jurisdiction to pass upon and decide the motion to dismiss submitted by petitioner herself, and where there is jurisdiction over the subject matter, the decision or order on all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of that jurisdiction (Herreravs.Barretto et al., 25 Phil. 245, 251), and errors which the court may commit in the exercise of such jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. Consequently, it is necessary to distinguish errors of jurisdiction from errors of judgment. The first may be reviewed in acertiorariproceeding (Hendersonvs.Tan, 87 Phil., 466) the second, by appeal (So Chu et al.,vs.Nepomuceno, 29 Phil. 208; De los Santosvs.Mapa, 46 Phil. 791; Santosvs.Court of First Instance, 49 Phil. 398; Ellovs.Judge of First Instance of Antique, 49 Phil. 152; Gonzalesvs.Salas, 49 Phil. 1; Ong Sitvs.Piccio, 78 Phil., 785, 44 Off. Gaz (12) 4915, 78 Phil. 785; Castrovs.Peña, 45 Off. Gaz., (Supp. to No. 9) 114, 80 Phil. 488; Herrerosvs.Toledo, 45 Off. Gaz. (Supp. to No. 9), 411, 88 Phil. 260.

We have already held that neithercertiorarinor prohibition lies against an order of the court granting or denying a motion to quash an information (and the same thing can be said of a motion to dismiss a civil complaint). If the courts had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case to decide the motion to quash or dismiss, appeal in due time is the obvious and only remedy for the parties affected therein (Archesvs.Beldia et al., G.R., No. L-2414, promulgated on May 27, 1949).

Wherefore, the petition filed herein is dismissed, with costs against the petitioner. It is so ordered.

Paras, C.J., Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. and Endencia, JJ.,concur.