G.R. No. 153829 & G.R. No. 160909, August 17, 2011
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA, represented by the incumbent Archbishop, Petitioner, vs. EDUARDO SORIANO, JR., ET AL., Respondents.

BENJAMIN GUINTO, JR., Petitioner, vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA, represented by the incumbent Archbishop, Respondent.

FACTS

1. The Roman Catholic Archbishop (RCA) of San Fernando, Pampanga, owner of a tract of land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 17629, filed an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 2000[23]) before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Macabebe-Masantol, Pampanga, against several individuals for unlawfully occupying the land.
2. The defendants in the ejectment case countered that the RCA’s title was spurious, the land belonged to the State, and they had acquired it by acquisitive prescription through over 30 years of continuous possession.
3. The MCTC ruled in favor of the RCA, upholding the validity of OCT No. 17629 and ordering the defendants to vacate and pay rentals. The defendants’ appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) was dismissed for failure to file an appeal memorandum, and their subsequent petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals (CA) was not given due course for being filed out of time. The MCTC decision became final.
4. The RCA moved for and was granted a writ of execution by the MCTC. Sheriff Edgar Joseph C. David issued a Notice to Vacate. Benjamin Guinto, Jr., one of the defendants, filed a Petition for Injunction (G.R. No. 160909) to enjoin the implementation of the writ and notice.
5. Meanwhile, during the pendency of the ejectment case, some of the defendants (the respondents in G.R. No. 153829 ) filed a separate case for Quieting of Title and Declaration of Nullity of Title (Civil Case No. 01-1046[M]) against the RCA before the RTC of Macabebe, Pampanga, claiming actual possession as owners and alleging that OCT No. 17629 was spurious and fake.
6. The RCA moved to dismiss the quieting of title case on grounds of noncompliance with a condition precedent, laches, and for being a collateral attack on its title. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs had a cause of action and that the issue of prescription was a matter of evidence for trial.
7. The RCA’s motion for reconsideration was denied. It then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which was dismissed. The CA also denied the RCA’s motion for reconsideration.
8. The RCA filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari ( G.R. No. 153829 ) assailing the CA’s dismissal. The Supreme Court consolidated G.R. No. 160909 and G.R. No. 153829 .

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the RCA’s motion to dismiss the quieting of title case (Civil Case No. 01-1046[M]).

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the ruling of the Court of Appeals. The RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss.
1. Denial of a Motion to Dismiss is Generally Not Reviewable by Certiorari: A writ of certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. The denial of a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order that generally cannot be questioned via certiorari. The proper remedy is for the movant to file an answer, raise the objections as affirmative defenses, and await a final judgment for appeal. An exception exists only if the denial was made with grave abuse of discretion—that is, in a patent, gross, arbitrary, or despotic manner amounting to an evasion of a positive duty.
2. No Grave Abuse of Discretion Found: The Supreme Court found no such grave abuse of discretion by the RTC. The RTC correctly held that the plaintiffs in the quieting of title case had sufficiently alleged a cause of action. They claimed to be in actual possession of the land in the concept of owners and asserted that the RCA’s title was fake, which, if proven, would demonstrate that the RCA’s claim was a cloud on their title. The RTC also properly ruled that the issue of whether the property could be acquired by prescription despite the RCA’s title was a matter of evidence to be threshed out during trial.
3. The Action is Not a Collateral Attack: The Supreme Court clarified that the action for quieting of title and declaration of nullity of title filed by the respondents constitutes a direct attack on the RCA’s certificate of title. A direct attack is made through an action whose main objective is to annul or set aside the judgment or decree creating the title. Since the respondents’ complaint sought the declaration of nullity of OCT No. 17629 as its primary relief, it was a direct, not a collateral, attack. A collateral attack occurs when, in another action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment or decree is made incidentally.
4. Disposition: The petition in G.R. No. 153829 was denied. The petition for injunction in G.R. No. 160909, treated as a motion for a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction in the consolidated case, was rendered moot by the denial of the main petition. The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s dismissal of the RCA’s certiorari petition and, consequently, the RTC’s order to proceed with the trial of the quieting of title case.