Villados v. San Pedro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns lot No. 419 in the Province of Nueva Ecija. In 1908, the San Pedro respondents filed homestead applications for portions of this lot. Subsequently, in 1910, the Grospe petitioners initiated proceedings to register the land in their names, obtaining a decree and certificate of title in April 1912. The San Pedro respondents alleged fraudulent non-disclosure of their occupancy in the registration proceedings. Procedural History: The San Pedro respondents filed a petition for review under section 38 of the Land Registration Act, which was granted by the Supreme Court in 1915, remanding the case for a new trial. Before the new trial, the parties agreed to have their claims adjudicated in a cadastral case (No. 6). During the cadastral proceedings, the San Pedro respondents failed to present their claims or appear, leading to a decision on July 10, 1918, registering the land in favor of the Grospe petitioners. On January 3, 1920, the San Pedro respondents filed another motion for review, alleging lack of notice of the cadastral hearing and decision. This review was granted on January 31, 1920. The Grospe petitioners later filed motions on June 18, 1924, and October 16, 1924, seeking to set aside the order granting the review, arguing it was filed out of time and lacked sufficient grounds, but these were denied. The Petition: The present petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on July 31, 1926. The petitioners contend that the petition for review filed on January 3, 1920, was presented more than one year after the July 10, 1918 decision, rendering the court without jurisdiction under section 38 of the Land Registration Act. They further argue that insufficient grounds were shown for the review, making the January 31, 1920 order void. The petitioners assert that certiorari is the appropriate remedy as the order granting the review was not a final determination of title and they have preserved their right to appeal the final decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review filed by respondents San Pedro was presented within the time allowed by law. Whether the failure to appeal the order granting the review bars petitioners from questioning its validity in a subsequent certiorari proceeding. Whether certiorari will lie when an adequate remedy by appeal exists.
Ruling
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. The order granting the review was presented in time, and the petitioners have an adequate remedy by appeal from the final determination of the cadastral case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the timeliness of the petition for review: The Court held that a petition for review under section 38 of the Land Registration Act may be presented at any time after the rendition of the judgment or decision of registration and before the expiration of one year from the entry of the final decree. In this case, the respondents' petition for review was filed before the entry of the final decree, thus it was presented within the time allowed by law. The Court cited its ruling in Rivera vs. Moran (48 Phil., 836) to support this conclusion. On the effect of failure to appeal the order granting the review: The Court noted that while an appeal from the order granting the review might have been admitted, it was not a final determination of the title to the land. The better practice was to except to the order and await the final determination of the controversy before bringing the matter up on appeal. Since the petitioners took due exception, they were not prevented from raising the issue on appeal from a possibly adverse decision rendered upon the termination of the new trial ordered by the court below. On the availability of certiorari: The Court ruled that certiorari will not lie when there is an adequate remedy available to the petitioners. In this instance, the petitioners had the right to appeal from the final decision of the cadastral case once the new trial ordered by the court below was concluded. As this appeal was an adequate remedy and the petitioners had not lost their right thereto, the writ of certiorari was deemed inappropriate.
Main Doctrine
A petition for a writ of certiorari to set aside an order granting a review of a cadastral case decision will not lie if the petitioners have an adequate remedy by way of appeal from the final decision of the cadastral case, and they have not lost their right to such appeal.