Heirs of Roxas v. Garcia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns two parcels of land in Tagaytay City. One parcel, the Roxas property, was surveyed in 1941. Another parcel, the Landicho property, was surveyed later and decreed in 1953. The Landicho property underwent several transfers, eventually being acquired by Republic Planters Bank through foreclosure. A significant issue arose when it was discovered that the survey for the Landicho property (Psu-136750) overlapped with the survey for the Roxas property (Psu-113427). Procedural History: In 1962, the heirs of Baldomero Roxas filed an application for registration of their property. While initially granted in 1963, the Land Registration Commission later reported overlapping claims. Subsequent reports confirmed the overlap between the Landicho and Roxas properties, with the Landicho survey encompassing the Roxas property. In 1988, the land registration court directed the parties to amend the Roxas property plan to exclude titled portions. By order in 1991, the court set aside its earlier decision, recalled the decree of registration, and dismissed the Roxas property's registration case, advising the heirs to file an action for annulment and reconveyance. Consequently, the Heirs of Roxas filed a complaint in 1991 against Republic Planters Bank for cancellation of title over the overlapping portion. This case, Civil Case No. TG-1212, was later amended. After various pleadings and motions, including a second motion for summary judgment by Solid Builders Inc. (a subsequent buyer of a portion of the Landicho property), the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagaytay dismissed the Heirs of Roxas' complaint in 1999. The RTC's denial of their motion for reconsideration led the petitioners to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Petition: The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari, ruling that the RTC's order dismissing the complaint was a final order subject to appeal, not certiorari, and that the petition was filed out of time. The petitioners, the Heirs of Roxas, are now before the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the dismissal of their complaint was appealable rather than subject to certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the trial court. They also contend that the Court of Appeals erred in its application of the rules regarding the timeliness of the certiorari petition and in resorting to strict technicality in dismissing their case.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the dismissal of the complaint by way of summary judgment is a proper subject of appeal, not certiorari; and whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the petition for certiorari on technicality, specifically regarding errors of judgment versus errors of jurisdiction. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the presumption of completeness of service of registered mail; and whether the rule on summary judgment was properly applied by the RTC. Whether the remedy sought (setting aside the decree) was proper, considering the established ownership and the lapse of time since the decree's issuance; and what remedies are available if the property has passed to an innocent purchaser for value.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari and grave abuse of discretion: The Court reiterated that an order dismissing a complaint is a final order, subject to appeal. Certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal and is precluded if the remedy of appeal was available but lost due to negligence. Even if certiorari were considered, it requires a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Errors of judgment, such as the RTC's application of summary judgment and findings on triable issues, are correctible by appeal, not certiorari. On the presumption of completeness of service and applicability of summary judgment: The Court clarified that the rule on summary judgment applies to all kinds of actions where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. The RTC's application of the summary judgment rule was within its authority, and any alleged error in finding no genuine issue was an error of judgment correctible by appeal. The presumption of completeness of service of registered mail was implicitly addressed in the context of whether the RTC's judgment was valid, which was deemed an error of judgment, not jurisdiction. On the remedy for established ownership with erroneous registration: The Court noted that if one has established ownership over a property but it was erroneously registered in another's name, the remedy after the lapse of one year from the decree's issuance is not to set aside the decree but to institute an ordinary action for reconveyance. If the property has passed to an innocent purchaser for value, the remedy is an action for damages or recovery from the Assurance Fund.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. If the remedy of appeal is available but lost due to the petitioner's negligence or error in the choice of remedies, resort to certiorari is precluded. Furthermore, errors of judgment, not of jurisdiction, cannot be corrected by certiorari.