Tumampos v. Ang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The dispute concerns Lot No. 1211, a 19,156-square-meter parcel in Babag, Lapu-Lapu City. Veronica L. Tumampos claims ownership through a Confirmation of Waiver and Quitclaim dated January 28, 2013, asserting she declared the property for taxation, took possession, and introduced improvements. Conversely, Concepcion P. Ang asserts a chain of ownership originating from Julio Berdan in 1947, through subsequent transfers culminating in a Deed of Absolute Sale in her favor in 1994. Ang initiated judicial titling proceedings in 1995, which remain pending. Procedural History: In June 2012, Tumampos filed a free patent application with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Region VII (DENR-VII). Ang protested this application, arguing the DENR-VII lacked jurisdiction and that she possessed a superior right. The DENR-VII granted Tumampos' application and dismissed Ang's protest, citing its jurisdiction over public lands and finding Tumampos' claim more credible due to discrepancies in Ang's predecessors' tax declarations and Tumampos' immediate possession and improvements. Ang's motion for reconsideration was denied. Without filing an appeal with the DENR Secretary, Ang filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The CA granted Ang's Petition for Certiorari, finding that the DENR-VII erred in taking cognizance of Tumampos' free patent application despite the pendency of Ang's judicial titling case, and that the CA's intervention was necessary to prevent conflicting rulings and potential loss of title for Ang. Tumampos, through a Petition for Review on Certiorari, assails the CA's decision, questioning whether the CA gravely erred in giving due course to the certiorari petition and whether a certiorari petition was a proper substitute for an appeal from the DENR-VII's decision. The Supreme Court agreed with Tumampos, holding that Ang had an available administrative appeal and that the certiorari petition was an improper recourse, as the DENR-VII correctly exercised its jurisdiction over public lands.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in giving due course to the Petition for Certiorari, considering Ang had an available remedy of appeal. Whether the DENR-VII lacked jurisdiction due to Ang's pending judicial titling case, and whether the rule on appeal from the decision of the DENR-VII may be dispensed with and instead allow a petition for certiorari be filed in lieu of an appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the CA's Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the DENR-VII's Decision and Order. The Court found that Ang's recourse to a Petition for Certiorari was improper as she had an available remedy of appeal to the DENR Secretary. The Court also clarified that the DENR has exclusive jurisdiction over the disposition of public lands, and a pending judicial titling case does not divest the DENR of its jurisdiction over a free patent application for land still considered part of the public domain.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the Petition for Certiorari: The Court reiterated that a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is an extraordinary remedy available only when a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal, or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court found that Ang had an available remedy by filing an appeal with the DENR Secretary within the 15-day reglementary period, as provided by DENR Department Administrative Order No. 87, Series of 1990. Instead of availing this remedy, Ang improperly filed a Petition for Certiorari. The Court emphasized that a certiorari petition cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal, and in this case, the DENR-VII decision had attained finality, as evidenced by the CA's own acknowledgment of an issued order of execution. On the jurisdiction of the DENR-VII despite a pending judicial titling case: The Court disagreed with the CA's conclusion that the DENR-VII lacked jurisdiction due to Ang's pending judicial titling case. The Court distinguished between judicial confirmation of incomplete or imperfect titles, which falls under the jurisdiction of regular courts, and administrative legalization through free patents, which is within the DENR's authority. The Court cited De Leon v. De Leon-Reyes to explain that upon compliance with requirements for judicial confirmation, the land becomes private and beyond the DENR's disposition. However, an applicant for an administrative legalization acknowledges the land as belonging to the government. The DENR-VII's finding, supported by an LRA certification, that the disputed property was declared public land in Cadastral Case No. 17, Cadastral Record No. 946, and remained part of the public domain, meant that the DENR-VII properly exercised its jurisdiction over the administration and disposition of the property. Therefore, the CA erred in ruling that the DENR-VII had no jurisdiction by reason of the pendency of Ang's judicial titling case.
Main Doctrine
A Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is an extraordinary recourse limited to errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment, and requires the absence of any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. An appeal from a DENR Regional Office decision to the DENR Secretary is an available and adequate remedy, and a Certiorari petition cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal.