Nuque v. Aquino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Edgar C. Nuque is the owner of three parcels of land (Lot Nos. 6018, 6019, and 2625) acquired through a public auction sale on October 21, 1999. These lots were originally owned by Hospicia Cardona, who had titles dating back to 1935 and 1941. Petitioner discovered that respondent Fidel Aquino obtained a title (OCT No. P-17563) over Lot Nos. 6018 and 2625 in 1996 through a free patent application, despite the lots already being owned by Cardona. Aquino subsequently sold these properties to respondents Spouses Alejandro and Erlinda Babina, who obtained their own title (TCT No. 351681) on January 24, 2002. Consequently, petitioner filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac City for cancellation of title and damages. Procedural History: The RTC, on November 3, 2004, rendered a decision declaring OCT No. P-17563 and TCT No. 351681 null and void, and validating OCT No. 2501 and TCT 10327. Respondent Fidel Aquino was ordered to pay nominal damages and attorney's fees, and both respondents were ordered to share the costs of a relocation survey. The RTC also directed an investigation into the potential criminal liability of DENR personnel and Fidel Aquino. An appeal by respondent Alejandro Babina eventually reached the Supreme Court, which considered the case closed and terminated on July 19, 2006, due to the failure to file a petition for review on certiorari. The respondent spouses' title was subsequently canceled by the RTC on March 30, 2009. Petitioner, learning that the respondent spouses were occupying the properties, filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Writ of Possession on May 4, 2009. The respondent spouses, in turn, filed a motion for reimbursement of expenses, claiming to be possessors in good faith and seeking reimbursement for improvements valued at P7,000,000.00. On November 26, 2009, the RTC denied both motions. The RTC reasoned that petitioner's original complaint was for cancellation of titles, not recovery of possession, and that its November 3, 2004 Decision had become final and immutable. Therefore, the motion for writ of possession could not be entertained after the finality of the cancellation of title action. Petitioner then filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The CA dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari in a Resolution dated March 17, 2010, on the ground that petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC Order before filing the certiorari petition. The CA denied petitioner's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated July 21, 2010. Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC Order, considering the nature of the RTC Order. Whether the RTC Order denying the motion for writ of possession was a final order that could be subject to a petition for certiorari without a prior motion for reconsideration, and whether the petitioner demonstrated any exceptions to the requirement of a motion for reconsideration.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated March 17, 2010, and July 21, 2010, in CA-G.R. SP No. 112750, are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of certiorari and the requirement of a prior motion for reconsideration regarding the nature of the RTC Order: The Court held that the RTC Order denying the motion for the issuance of a writ of possession was in the nature of a final order, as it left nothing further to be resolved. Consequently, the proper remedy for the petitioner was to appeal the RTC Order, not to file a special civil action for certiorari. The existence and availability of the right to appeal generally prohibit the resort to certiorari, as one of the requirements for certiorari is the unavailability of appeal. On the requirement of a prior motion for reconsideration and exceptions: Even if the petitioner's resort to certiorari were considered proper, the Court found no error on the part of the CA in dismissing the petition because the petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed RTC Order prior to filing his certiorari petition. Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court explicitly requires that there be no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Jurisprudence consistently holds that a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari, serving as the plain and adequate remedy. While exceptions exist, such as when a motion for reconsideration would be useless or when the order is a patent nullity, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that any of these exceptions applied to his case. The petitioner's assertion that a motion for reconsideration would be futile was deemed self-serving and an improper unilateral disregard of legal requirements. The Court emphasized that judgments become final and executory only upon the lapse of the reglementary period for appeal or motion for reconsideration without any such action being taken, and that procedural rules are designed to facilitate, not impede, the adjudication of cases, requiring strict adherence.
Main Doctrine
A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is not proper when an appeal is available. Furthermore, as a general rule, a motion for reconsideration of the assailed order or resolution must be filed before resorting to certiorari, and exceptions to this rule must be clearly demonstrated.