G.R. No. 153829 Case Digest

G.R. No. 153829, August 17, 2011

Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Fernando

vs Eduardo Soriano, etc.

Ponente: Villarama

Facts:

RCA claimed that it is the owner of the vast tract of land located in Pampanga covered with a registered TCT. RCA alleged that several individuals occupied the land and refused to vacate despite repeated demands. RCA, filed an ejectment case against the alleged intruders.

On the other hand, defendants countered that the RCA has no cause of action against them because its title is spurious. They contended that the subject land belonged to the State, but they have already acquired the same by acquisitive prescription as they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in continuous possession of the land for more than thirty (30) years.

RTC ruled in favor of the RCA. During the pendency of the ejectment case in the MCTC, some of the defendants claimed they are in actual possession of the land in the concept of owners and alleged that the title in the name of the RCA is fake.

Issue: Essentially, the issue before us is whether the CA erred in not holding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss filed by the RCA.

Held: We affirm the ruling of the CA.

Well-entrenched in our jurisdiction is the rule that the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a certiorari proceeding under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.  This is because a certiorari writ is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The appropriate course of action of the movant in such event is to file an answer and interpose as affirmative defenses the objections raised in the motion to dismiss. 

The only exception to this rule is when the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion. This exception is, nevertheless, applied sparingly, and only in instances when there is a clear showing that the trial court exercised its judicial power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.

The CA explained that the requirement stated in Article 477 is not a condition precedent before one can file an action for quieting of title.  Rather, it is a requisite for an action to quiet title to prosper and the existence or nonexistence of the requisite should be determined only after trial on the merits. The CA also agreed with the trial court in ruling that the RCA cannot raise in a motion to dismiss the ground that the complaint is already barred by laches for it still remains to be established during trial how long the plaintiffs have slept on their rights, if such be the case. 

The complaint filed with the RTC pertinently alleged that the claim of ownership by the RCA is spurious as its title, denominated as OCT No. 17629, is fake for the following reasons: (1) that the erasures are very apparent and the title itself is fake; (2) it was made to appear under Memorandum of Encumbrance Entry No. 1007 that the title is a reconstituted title when in truth, it is not; and (3) the verification reveals that there was no petition filed before any court where an order was issued for the reconstitution and re-issuance of an owner's duplicate copy. It is thus clear from the foregoing that the case filed questioning the genuineness of OCT No. 17629 is a direct attack on the title of the RCA.

In this case, the defendants in the ejectment case possess no such legal rights that merit the protection of the courts through the writ of preliminary injunction.  The MCTC has already rendered a decision in favor of the RCA and ordered the defendants therein to vacate the premises.  Their appeal to the RTC was dismissed and the decision has become final.  Evidently, their right to possess the property in question has already been declared inferior or inexistent in relation to the right of the RCA in the MCTC decision which has already become final and executory.