Petitioner filed before the RTC of Muntinlupa City a complaint for Collection and Declaration of ullity of Deed of!bsolute "ale #ith application for In$unction a#ainst her o#n son, herein respondent, and one If&al!li'. Respondent immediately filed a Motion to Dismiss on the sole %round that the +enue of the case #as improperly laid'
Petitioner filed before the RTC of Muntinlupa City a complaint for Collection and Declaration of ullity of Deed of!bsolute "ale #ith application for In$unction a#ainst her o#n son, herein respondent, and one If&al!li'. Respondent immediately filed a Motion to Dismiss on the sole %round that the +enue of the case #as improperly laid'
Petitioner filed before the RTC of Muntinlupa City a complaint for Collection and Declaration of ullity of Deed of!bsolute "ale #ith application for In$unction a#ainst her o#n son, herein respondent, and one If&al!li'. Respondent immediately filed a Motion to Dismiss on the sole %round that the +enue of the case #as improperly laid'
Facts: In October 2000, petitioner filed before the RTC of
Muntinlupa City a Complaint for Collection and Declaration of
ullity of Deed of !bsolute "ale #ith application for In$unction a%ainst her o#n son, herein respondent, and one If&al !li' (etitioner alle%ed that respondent leased a parcel of land that they co)o#ned to If&al in Dasmarinas *illa%e and that respondent declared that he is the sole o#ner of the said parcel of land' Respondent immediately filed a Motion to Dismiss on the sole %round that the +enue of the case #as improperly laid' ,e stressed that #hile the complaint #as denominated as one for Collection and Declaration of ullity of Deed of !bsolute "ale #ith application for In$unction, in truth the case #as a real action affectin% title to and interest o+er the sub$ect property' "ince the sub$ect property is located in Ma-ati City, respondent ar%ued that petitioner should ha+e filed the case before the RTC of Ma-ati City and not of Muntinlupa City' The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss of the respondent on .anuary 2, 200/' ,o#e+er, on !pril 20, 2000, the RTC dismissed the case for #ant of $urisdiction because the case should ha+e been filed in RTC Ma-ati' (etitioner filed an MR #hich #as denied' ,ence, this petition' Issue: Whether or not petitioners Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, in relation to Rule 41, of the Rules of Civil Procedure on alleged pure questions of law directly filed to the SC is the proper reedy in the case at !ar" ,eld: # question of law arises when there is dou!t as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the dou!t arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts" Petitioner prayed to the Supree Court to decide the case on the erits" $o do so, however, would require the e%aination !y this Court of the pro!ative value of the evidence presented, ta&ing into account the fact that the R$C failed to ad'udicate this controversy on the erits" $his, unfortunately, the Supree Court cannot do" (t thus !ecoes e%ceedingly clear that the filing of the case directly with the Supree Court ran afoul of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts" Pursuant to this doctrine, direct resort fro the lower courts to the Supree Court will not !e entertained unless the appropriate reedy sought cannot !e o!tained in the lower tri!unals" $his Court is a court of last resort, and ust so reain if it is to satisfactorily perfor the functions assigned to it !y the Constitution and !y ieorial tradition"