Haw Pia v. San Jose
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the right of conventional redemption over Lot No. 8610. Aurelia Altea, as assignee, claimed this right against Haw Pia, the original petitioner. The litigation involved determining the validity of this redemption and the associated redemption price. Procedural History: The case originated in cadastral case No. 63, G.L.R.O. record No. 1019. The Court of First Instance of Tayabas initially ruled on the matter, and its decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in a decision dated August 31, 1940, upheld Altea's right of redemption and set the price at P490. Altea subsequently consigned this amount. Further proceedings led to an order from the Court of First Instance on January 13, 1941, directing the Register of Deeds to register Altea's right of redemption, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the occupation government on July 27, 1943. An order dated January 6, 1944, from the Court of First Instance directed Haw Pia to surrender the owner's duplicate of the title for cancellation and issuance of a new title in Altea's name, with the consigned amount to be delivered to Haw Pia. Haw Pia filed multiple motions for reconsideration, all of which were denied by the Court of First Instance, culminating in an order dated August 30, 1946, by Judge Ramon R. San Jose. The Petition: Haw Pia filed a petition for certiorari, challenging the order of January 6, 1944, and subsequent denials of reconsideration. The petitioner argued that the order had become impossible to execute due to the freezing of the consigned funds by Japanese authorities and the lack of provision for their payment by the current government. The Supreme Court found that the proper remedy for the petitioner should have been an appeal, citing the case of Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Payva, as the lower court's order resolved important questions regarding the parties' rights and involved the eventual cancellation of a title. The Court also noted that even if the funds were frozen, any loss would fall upon the petitioner, and that the consignation made by Altea was valid, relieving her of liability for subsequent risks to the due object.
Issue(s)
Whether the remedy of certiorari is proper to challenge the CFI's order requiring the surrender of a title for cancellation. Whether the loss or 'freezing' of the consigned redemption price by occupation authorities should be borne by the debtor (Altea) or the creditor (Haw Pia).
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed. The order of January 6, 1944, is appealable, and therefore, certiorari is not the proper remedy. Any loss resulting from the alleged "freezing" of the consigned funds would be borne by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the petition for certiorari cannot prosper because appeal was the proper and available remedy. Citing the precedent in Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Payva (44 Phil. 624), the Court noted that an order resolving important questions regarding the rights of parties and requiring the surrender of a certificate of title for eventual cancellation and issuance of a new one is a final, appealable order. Since Haw Pia failed to appeal the various orders of the CFI, she cannot use certiorari as a substitute for a lost appeal. The orders of the CFI, having attained finality due to the lapse of the period to appeal, are no longer subject to review via a special civil action. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the risk of loss of the consigned amount falls on Haw Pia. Applying Article 1176 of the Civil Code, the Court found that Altea had complied with all the requisites of a valid consignation in 1940, using genuine Philippine currency before the war. The act of consignation effectively relieved Altea of her liability and extinguished the obligation. Relying on the commentaries of Manresa, the Court emphasized that a valid consignation results in the debtor being free from responsibility for risks that subsequently befall the thing due without the debtor's intervention. Consequently, if the money was lost or made unavailable due to the 'freezing' actions of the Japanese authorities, Haw Pia, as the creditor who was entitled to the funds, must suffer the loss.
Main Doctrine
An order directing the surrender of a certificate of title for cancellation and issuance of a new one in favor of another owner, which resolves important questions as to the respective rights of the parties and requires an operation that will carry with it the eventual cancellation and issuance of a new title, is appealable. Certiorari is not the proper remedy when an appeal is available.