Paulete v. Laplana
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Rogelia Paulete, as the compulsory heir of the deceased Matea Aujero, claimed to be a co-owner of Lot No. 1115 of the Cadastral Survey of Dueñas. Matea Aujero had filed her answer in the cadastral proceedings on June 23, 1931. Procedural History: On September 29, 1949, the respondent judge issued a general order of general default in the cadastral proceedings. Subsequently, on October 5, 1949, after declaring Lot No. 1115 as uncontested and issuing a general order of default against all parties who failed to file new or reconstituted answers, the judge rendered a decision adjudicating half of Lot No. 1115 to Venancio Laplana and Pedro Aujero. The Petition: Rogelia Paulete learned of the adjudication on December 10, 1950, eleven months after the decision. She approached Pedro Aujero, who acknowledged her claim and executed an affidavit on December 18, 1950, recognizing that a portion of Lot No. 1115 belonged to Rogelia Paulete and waiving his rights thereto. Paulete alleged that she could not avail herself of the remedy under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court before the Court of First Instance because eleven months had already elapsed since she learned of the decision. Consequently, she filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in adjudicating Lot No. 1115 to Venancio Laplana and Pedro Aujero. Whether a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy under the circumstances.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. It held that the petitioner had an available remedy under Section 38 of Act No. 496 (Property Registration Decree) and that certiorari is only proper when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, or when a lower court has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari: The Court reiterated that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is an extraordinary remedy that lies only when a tribunal has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It is not a substitute for an appeal and is only available when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In this case, the petitioner discovered the adverse decision eleven months after it was rendered. However, Section 38 of Act No. 496 provides a remedy for any person who has been deprived of his land by reason of the fraudulent registration of another, allowing him to file a petition for review within one year from the date of the decree. Since no decree had yet been issued, this ordinary remedy was still available to the petitioner. Therefore, the extraordinary remedy of certiorari was not warranted. On the alleged grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge. The judge issued a general order of default against all parties who failed to file their answers. Subsequently, the lot was declared uncontested and adjudicated. While the petitioner claimed to be a co-owner, her failure to file an answer or to avail herself of the remedies provided by law within the prescribed periods, particularly Section 38 of Act No. 496, meant that she could not fault the judge for proceeding with the adjudication based on the records before him. The remedy under Section 38 of Act No. 496 was designed precisely for situations where a party is deprived of their property due to issues in the registration process, and it was the appropriate avenue for the petitioner to assert her claim.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is only proper when a lower court or tribunal has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In cadastral proceedings, Section 38 of Act No. 496 provides a remedy for those deprived of their property due to fraudulent registration, which must be availed of within one year from the decree's issuance, and this ordinary remedy must be exhausted before resorting to certiorari.