Timbol v. Diaz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Hilarion Timbol held a certificate of title based on a free patent issued under Act No. 926. Respondent Pedro N. Liongson held a Torrens certificate of title based on a decree from the Court of Land Registration for a tract of land that included lot No. 802. Procedural History: Both Timbol and Liongson claimed ownership of lot No. 802 in a cadastral registration proceeding. The trial court ruled that Liongson's title prevailed over Timbol's free patent title and adjudicated the land to Liongson. Timbol excepted and filed a motion for a new trial but failed to bring it to the court's attention and did not appeal. Subsequently, the court declared the decision final and ordered the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of Liongson. Timbol appeared in opposition to this motion but again failed to appeal. The Petition: Timbol filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, alleging that the respondent judge exceeded its jurisdiction by passing upon the title to land already registered in a cadastral proceeding and by ordering the issuance of a final decree. He sought to have the decisions, orders, and decrees declared null and void and to be declared the absolute owner of the lot.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction in a cadastral proceeding by passing upon the title to land already registered. Whether certiorari is the proper remedy when the petitioner had an adequate remedy by appeal.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court held that the respondent judge did not exceed his jurisdiction and that certiorari is not the proper remedy.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction: The Court held that the respondent judge did not exceed his jurisdiction in undertaking to determine the relative rank of the two certificates of title in question within the cadastral proceeding. While the court erred in ordering the issuance of a new final decree instead of limiting itself to ordering the cancellation of both certificates and the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title in favor of Liongson, this error did not go to the jurisdiction of the court. The court's action was necessary for a complete settlement of the title to the land, which is the express purpose of cadastral proceedings. The court did not reopen or set aside a final decree of registration that had already been settled. On the issue of whether certiorari is the proper remedy: The Court held that certiorari will not lie because the petitioner appeared in the cadastral case and had an adequate remedy by appeal. Under such circumstances, where an appeal is available, certiorari is not a substitute for the lost right of appeal. The petitioner's failure to pursue his remedy of appeal, despite having the opportunity, bars him from seeking relief through certiorari.
Main Doctrine
Certiorari will not lie when the petitioner had an adequate remedy by appeal. Furthermore, a court in a cadastral proceeding has the jurisdiction to determine the relative rank of conflicting registered titles, as this is necessary for a complete settlement of the title to the land.