Guevarra v. Hermoso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the ownership of a parcel of land, identified as lot 567-A of the Malinta estate in Polo, Bulacan. The respondent, Justino Hermoso, claimed absolute and exclusive ownership of this property, evidenced by transfer certificate of title No. T-18603 issued in his name. The petitioner, Onofre P. Guevara, also asserted a claim to the same land, alleging a purchase from Bartolome Barcelino in 1955, who was also a defendant in the original case. Procedural History: Respondent Justino Hermoso initiated Civil Case No. 2187 against Onofre P. Guevara and Bartolome Barcelino before the Court of First Instance of Malolos, Bulacan. The court rendered a judgment on September 4, 1963, upholding Hermoso's claim and ordering Guevara and Barcelino to vacate the premises and pay attorney's fees. Guevara alleges this judgment was rendered ex-parte after his counsel's request for postponement was denied and that he was not served a copy of the decision. He claims to have only learned of the judgment when a writ of execution and demolition was issued. The respondent court's records, however, indicate that the judgment was not based solely on uncorroborated testimony but on documentary evidence tracing Hermoso's chain of title. Furthermore, respondent averred that a copy of the decision was duly served on petitioner by registered mail on September 6, 1963, and that a motion for execution filed on December 7, 1965, was personally served on petitioner, who took no steps to contest it. The Petition: Petitioner Onofre P. Guevara filed an original action for certiorari on November 7, 1967, seeking to set aside the September 4, 1963, judgment and to enjoin its execution. He argued that he was deprived of ownership without due process, alleging an arbitrary denial of his request for postponement and lack of notice of the decision. He contended that an ordinary appeal was no longer feasible due to the issuance of the writ of execution and demolition. The Supreme Court issued a writ of preliminary injunction upon petitioner's filing of a bond. However, the Court found that petitioner was barred by inaction and laches, having failed to avail of ordinary legal remedies such as motions for reconsideration, new trial, or petition for relief, and that the issues raised were errors of law, not jurisdictional errors, making certiorari an inappropriate remedy.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the special civil action of certiorari to set aside the judgment of the respondent court. Whether the respondent court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering the judgment and issuing the writ of execution and demolition.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is dissolved. The Court found that the petitioner is barred by his own inaction and laches for more than four years after the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to certiorari: The Court held that petitioner is clearly barred by his own inaction and laches for more than four years after the judgment. He failed to avail of adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law, such as moving for reconsideration, asking for a new trial, or filing a petition for relief from judgment, and subsequently appealing. Certiorari is not a substitute for an appeal that has been lost due to the petitioner's fault or negligence. The petitioner failed to make out a clear case of the respondent court acting without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. On the court's jurisdiction and discretion: The Court found no evidence that the respondent court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The decision was based on documentary evidence tracing the respondent's chain of title, not merely on uncorroborated testimony. The petitioner's claim of an ex-parte hearing due to a denied telegraphic request was not substantiated, especially since no copy of the telegram was presented, and the petitioner did not deny receiving the order of August 20, 1963, which designated a deputy clerk to receive evidence. Furthermore, the petitioner was duly served with the decision and the motion for execution, yet took no steps to contest them.
Main Doctrine
Certiorari is not a substitute for an appeal that was lost due to the petitioner's own fault or negligence. A party seeking certiorari must demonstrate that the lower court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.