Borromeo Bros. Estate v. Garcia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 17, 1938, Patricia Ruedas Vda. de Andrada granted a road right of way over Lot No. 6-H-2 to spouses Gil Garcia and Teresa Escaño de Garcia for valuable consideration. Subsequently, on September 28, 1938, Patricia sold Lot No. 6-H-2 to petitioner Borromeo Bros. Estate, Inc., with the deed of sale explicitly stating that the purchase was subject to the previously granted right of way. The Garcia couple's rights were inherited by their estate, from which respondent Edgar John A. Garcia acquired title in 1996. Procedural History: In 1952, the Garcia couple moved for the annotation of the road right of way on the title of Lot No. 6-H-2, which was granted by the Court of First Instance of Cebu. Petitioner, the owner of the lot, was notified but did not oppose. Years later, in 1997, respondent filed a petition with the RTC of Cebu, impleading only the Register of Deeds, to annotate the road right of way. The RTC granted the petition, directing the annotation. Petitioner, upon receiving a copy of the order, filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing denial of due process and that the petition was a shortcut to enforce a stale order. The RTC denied the motion. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. Sp. No. 47049). Meanwhile, respondent filed a motion for execution, which the RTC denied, prompting respondent to file a petition for mandamus and certiorari with the CA (CA-G.R. Sp. No. 48512). The CA consolidated these cases and ultimately dismissed petitioner's certiorari petition while granting respondent's mandamus and certiorari petition. The Petition: Petitioner Borromeo Bros. Estate, Inc. filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to annul the consolidated decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner argues that the CA erred in dismissing its petition for certiorari by failing to recognize the alleged nullity of the RTC's order due to denial of due process and abuse of discretion in reviving a stale order. Petitioner also contends that the CA erred in granting respondent's petition for mandamus and certiorari. The core of petitioner's argument is that the RTC order violated its right to due process and that the petition was an improper attempt to enforce a claim that had prescribed.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing petitioner's petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. Sp. No. 47049) despite alleged denial of substantive and procedural due process and grave abuse of discretion by the cadastral court; including whether there was a violation of due process, whether the cadastral court's order was a revival of a stale order, and whether the cadastral court had jurisdiction. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting respondent's petition for mandamus and certiorari (CA-G.R. Sp. No. 48512); including whether the cadastral court's order had attained finality.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Consolidated Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated June 21, 1999 and August 9, 1999, respectively, in CA-G.R. Sp. No. 47049 and CA-G.R. Sp. No. 48512 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of CA-G.R. Sp. No. 47049 and the alleged denial of due process, revival of a stale order, and jurisdiction of the cadastral court: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of BBEI's petition on procedural grounds, emphasizing that certiorari is limited to errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The CA correctly found BBEI's arguments to be errors of procedure or judgment, beyond certiorari's scope. The Supreme Court found no error of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. BBEI was afforded due process through the hearing of its motion for reconsideration and submission of memoranda. Deprivation of due process cannot be invoked when a party is given the chance to be heard on their motion for reconsideration. The cadastral court's orders were based on established facts. It was immaterial whether the cadastral court's order was a revival of a previous order because the primary basis for the annotation was the substantial evidence on the existence of the easement. The Court clarified that Presidential Decree No. 1529 eliminated the distinction between the general jurisdiction of the RTC and its limited jurisdiction as a land registration court. Furthermore, the rules on revival of stale judgments apply to civil actions, not to special proceedings like land registration cases. On the granting of CA-G.R. Sp. No. 48512 and the finality of the cadastral court's order: The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision to grant respondent's petition for mandamus and certiorari. Since no restraining order or injunction was issued in BBEI's certiorari petition, the period for the finality of the cadastral court's order requiring annotation was never interrupted. The filing of a petition for certiorari is an independent action that does not interrupt the course of the principal action or the running of the reglementary period. Therefore, the cadastral court's order of July 23, 1997, had attained finality, and there were no longer any obstacles to its immediate execution. The Supreme Court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the annotation of the easement of right of way and that the requirements of due process were met. No abuse of discretion was committed by the cadastral court. Consequently, the Court of Appeals was justified in dismissing BBEI's petition and affirming the order for annotation.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a special civil action for certiorari before the Court of Appeals limits the determination of the appellate court to whether there was an error of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the cadastral court. A special civil action for certiorari is an independent action, raising the question of jurisdiction where the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals found neither error of jurisdiction nor grave abuse of discretion, and dismissed the petition by stating that "[t]o Us and to say the most, aforementioned arguments are indeed typical only of either an error of procedure or an error of judgment." This Court agrees.