MAGDALITA Y. TANG, v CA G.R. No.

117204 February 11, 2000

PARTIES TO THE PETITION

FACTS

Respondent administrator of the estate of the Spouses Toribio Teodoro and Marta Teodoro sought to sell the subject
lots to finally settle the estate. He applied with the Caloocan City Engineer for a permit to fence the lots. The City
Engineer endorsed the application to the City Legal Officer, for appropriate action. The City Legal Officer, after
concluding that the subject lots are street lots, recommended the denial of the fencing permit to the City
Engineer.8 Accordingly, the City Engineer denied respondent administrator's application for a fencing permit. 1wphi 1.nt

This predicament prompted respondent administrator to file a petition before the probate court to order the Caloocan
City Engineer to issue the fencing permit for the subject lots. After hearing, the probate court issued an Order
granting the petition.

When petitioner Magdalita Tang, a neighboring lot owner, noticed that the subject lots were already being fenced, she
questioned the Order of the probate court by filing a special civil action for certiorari with prayer for preliminary
injunction before the Court of Appeals. She was joined by other petitioners.

The Court of Appeals issued a resolution denying due course to the said petition on the ground that certiorariwas not
the proper remedy for petitioners to annul and set aside the order of the lower court. MR was denied.

Petitioners assert that since they were not parties in the proceedings before the probate court, they could not have
possibly availed of the remedy of appeal so as to question the said order before the Court of Appeals. 16 Because of
this, petitioners conclude that the only remedy available to them is the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE Whether or not the petitioners are the proper parties to file the special civil action of certiorari

HELD

No. The Court agrees with petitioners that the remedy of appeal under Rule 42 is not available to them since this
mode of appeal can only be availed by one who was a party in the proceedings before the lower court. However, they
are not also the proper parties to file the special civil action of certiorari.

Although Section 1 of Rule 65 provides that the special civil action of certiorari may be availed of by a "person
aggrieved" by the orders or decisions of a tribunal, the term "person aggrieved" is not to be construed to mean that
any person who feels injured by the lower court's order or decision can question the said court's disposition
via certiorari. To sanction a contrary interpretation would open the floodgates to numerous and endless litigations
which would undeniably lead to the clogging of court dockets and, more importantly, the harassment of the party who
prevailed in the lower court.

In a situation wherein the order or decision being questioned underwent adversarial proceedings before a trial court,
the "person aggrieved" referred to under Section 1 of Rule 65 who can avail of the special civil action
of certioraripertains to one who was a party in the proceedings before the lower court. The correctness of this
interpretation can be gleaned from the fact that a special civil action for certiorari may be dismissed motu proprio if
the party elevating the case failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the questioned order or decision before the
lower court.18Obviously, only one who was a party in the case before the lower court can file a motion for
reconsideration since a stranger to the litigation would not have the legal standing to interfere in the orders or
decisions of the said court. In relation to this, if a non-party in the proceedings before the lower court has no standing
to file a motion for reconsideration, logic would lead us to the conclusion that he would likewise have no standing to
question the said order or decision before the appellate court via certiorari.