Heirs of Retera v Sps Mores

REMEDIAL LAW 1 > RULE 40-56 > Appeal from HEIRS OF RETERTA vs. SPS. MORES G.R. No. 159941; August 17, 2011 DOCTRINE: Certiorari can be the proper remedy despite the availability of appeal or other remedy if warranted by exceptional reasons such as: (a) when it is necessary to prevent irreparable damages and injury to a party; (b) where the trial judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment; (c) where there may be danger of a failure of justice; (d) where an appeal would be slow, inadequate, and insufficient; (e) where the issue raised is one purely of law; (f) where public interest is involved; and (g) in case of urgency. FACTS: Teofilo Reterta was granted a friar land in Tanza, Cavite, by virtue of his open, exclusive and continued occupation for more than 30 years. He died in 1983 leaving behind the land to his heirs, the petitioners. The petitioners discovered in 1999 that there was an affidavit purportedly executed by their father waiving his rights and interest over the land, and by virtue of such affidavit, a Sale Certificate and TCT was issued in favor of the respondents. The petitioners filed an action for quieting of title and reconveyance alleging that such affidavit was a forgery and the sale certificate and TCT were procured fraudulently. The respondents filed a motion to dismiss, insisting that the RTC had no jurisdiction on the ground that the Director of Lands had the exclusive power to the propriety of grant of Friar lands, and to determine whether or not there is fraud in procuring the sales certificate. Agreeing with the ground, the RTC granted the Motion to Dismiss. Receiving the Order of Dismissal on Nov.16, 2001, the petitioners filed an MR on Nov.26. However, the RTC denied the MR in its order, which was received by the petitioners on March 20, 2002, thus, prompting them to file a petition for certiorari with the CA on May 15, 2002. The CA dismissed the petition, holding that certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal, considering that the order granting the Motion to Dismiss was a final order against which the proper remedy was an appeal in due course. Hence, the appeal to the SC. ISSUE: WON the Petition for Certiorari was proper. HELD: YES, Certiorari was proper. At first, the SC held that the contention of the petitioners that their proper remedy was certiorari by virtue of Rule 41 was misplaced. According to Sec.1, Rule 41 (not yet amended by AM 7-712 during the decision of the CA) an Order denying a Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration is one of the cases where no appeal may be taken from and the proper remedy is to avail of Certiorari under Rule 65. However, in this case, what the petitioners really wanted to obtain relief from was the Order of Dismissal which finally disposed of the case, and not the denial of their MR. The general rule is that certiorari is precluded as a remedy against the final order when appeal is available. Nonetheless, the SC considered Certiorari as the proper remedy despite the availability of appeal or other remedy if warranted by exceptional reasons such as: (a) when it is necessary to prevent irreparable damages and injury to a party; (b) where the trial judge capriciously and whimsically exercised his judgment; (c) where there may be danger of a failure of justice; (d)

where an appeal would be slow, inadequate, and insufficient; (e) where the issue raised is one purely of law; (f) where public interest is involved; and (g) in case of urgency. Thus, the CA should have given due course to and granted the petition for certiorari on two reasons: (a) the broader interest of justice demanded it in order to avoid the undeserved grossly unjust result that would befall the petitioners; and (b) the RTC’s grant of the MTD on the ground of lack of jurisdiction evidently constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. For the first reason, the petitioners’ complaint made out a good case considering its allegations, if duly established, might warrant reconveyance of the land to them from the petitioners, as the title of a friar land obtained by a grantee may be assailed and nullified if found not in conformity with the requirements set by law. For the second, according to BP.129 as amended, the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over actions involving title or possession of real property, which includes an action for quieting of title (considering the jurisdictional amount) and the authority of the Director of Lands (now the LMB) is limited to the administration and disposition of friar lands, and does not include actions for reconveyance.