Rolloque v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns Lot No. 447 of the Butuan Cadastre. Originally, a decree for this lot was issued in 1941 to spouses Montano Hidalgo and Policarpia Estioko. However, the original certificate of title was lost during the war. Later, Lazaro Hidalgo, an heir, filed a petition for reconstitution of the lost title. The Rolloque heirs, including Hermogena Rolloque, opposed this, claiming ownership of a portion of the lot acquired by Hermogena and her deceased husband, Cayo Rolloque. 2. Procedural History: Lazaro Hidalgo's petition for reconstitution was filed in 1968. The Rolloque heirs opposed and also filed a separate civil case for removal of clouds, declaration of ownership, reconveyance, and damages in 1970, which remained pending. The trial court granted the reconstitution petition in 1978, subject to certain conditions. The Rolloque heirs appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which dismissed their appeal as late in 1980, with the dismissal becoming final in 1982. Subsequently, the Register of Deeds noted a duplication of title for a portion of Lot No. 447, with Free Patent No. 895754 issued to Hermogena Rolloque and a title under OCT No. P-1882. Due to inaction on this matter, Apolinario Hidalgo (an heir of Montano Hidalgo) filed a civil action for cancellation of title, reconveyance, and damages in 1984. This was dismissed by the trial court on grounds of pendency of another action (referring to the 1970 civil case). Apolinario Hidalgo then filed a petition for cancellation of OCT No. P-1882 with the Land Registration Court, which was also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. This dismissal led to a petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by Apolinario Hidalgo with the Supreme Court, which was referred to the Court of Appeals. 3. The Petition: The Court of Appeals, in its decision dated November 28, 1986, reversed the trial court's dismissal, finding grave abuse of discretion and ordering the removal of OCT No. P-1882 and its derivatives from the registration book, and the issuance of a reconstituted owner's duplicate certificate of title for Lot No. 447 in the name of Montano Hidalgo and Policarpia Estioko. The motions for reconsideration filed by the petitioners (Solomon Rolloque et al. and Concordio Rivera) were denied by the Court of Appeals on March 17, 1987. These consolidated petitions for certiorari seek to annul the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that it acted without jurisdiction by altering a final and executory decision and by denying their motions for reconsideration, particularly concerning the strict enforcement of the Habaluyas ruling on non-extendible periods for filing motions for reconsideration.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in reversing the trial court's dismissal of the petition for cancellation of title. Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
Ruling
The petitions are DISMISSED for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 28, 1986, is AFFIRMED and declared IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion by the Court of Appeals in reversing the trial court's dismissal: The Supreme Court held that the trial court's decision in the reconstitution case was conditional, stating that it was "provided, further, that no certificate of title of whatever nature covering the same parcel of land exist in the Office of the Register of Deeds concerned which may be adversely affected thereby." This condition meant the judgment had not attained finality until the condition was performed or settled. Therefore, the Court of Appeals, in reviewing the case via certiorari, had the power to decide the case on its merits, especially considering the case had been pending for over twenty years and a remand would serve no useful purpose. The Court cited Epifanio Cruz and Evelina Cruz vs. Intermediate Appellate Court to support the broader interest of justice in deciding the petition for certiorari on its merits. The Court also noted that the trial court, acting as a land registration court, lacked jurisdiction to cancel an existing title (OCT No. P-1882) and resolve issues of ownership and reconveyance, which are matters for a regular civil court. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' denial of the motion for reconsideration. The Court reiterated its ruling in Habaluyas Inc. vs. Japson, which established that motions for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration are no longer allowed in Metropolitan, Municipal, and Regional Trial Courts, as well as the Court of Appeals, effective one month after the promulgation of the Habaluyas resolution (July 1, 1986). Since the petitioners filed their motion for extension on December 18, 1986, which was well beyond the grace period, the Court of Appeals correctly denied it. The filing of such a motion did not toll the fifteen-day period for filing a motion for reconsideration, which renders the judgment final and executory. The Court emphasized that certiorari is not a substitute for a lapsed appeal, citing Edra v. Intermediate Appellate Court.
Main Doctrine
A court acting as a land registration court has no jurisdiction to cancel an existing title, especially when the issue involves ownership and reconveyance, which are matters properly cognizable by a regular civil court. Furthermore, a petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lapsed appeal.