G.R. No. 193058 , July 8, 2015
EDGAR C. NUQUE, Petitioner, vs. FIDEL AQUINO and SPOUSES ALEJANDRO and ERLINDA BABINA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Edgar C. Nuque is the owner of three parcels of land (Lot Nos. 6018, 6019, and 2625) in Gerona, Tarlac, which he acquired in a public auction sale on October 21, 1999. The properties were originally owned by Hospicia Cardona, who held titles dating back to 1935 and 1941. However, in 1996, respondent Fidel Aquino obtained a free patent title (OCT No. P-17563) over Lot Nos. 6018 and 2625, despite Cardona’s existing ownership. Aquino later sold the lots to respondent spouses Alejandro and Erlinda Babina, who secured TCT No. 351681 on January 24, 2002.
On September 9, 2002, Nuque filed a Complaint for cancellation of title and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac City. On November 3, 2004, the RTC declared Aquino’s and the spouses’ titles null and void, upheld Cardona’s (and thus Nuque’s) titles, and awarded damages. The decision became final and executory on September 13, 2006, after the Supreme Court dismissed Alejandro Babina’s appeal. The RTC subsequently canceled the spouses’ title on March 30, 2009.
Upon learning that the spouses remained in possession of the properties, Nuque filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Writ of Possession on May 4, 2009. The spouses countered with a motion for reimbursement, claiming they were possessors in good faith entitled to reimbursement for improvements valued at ₱7,000,000. On November 26, 2009, the RTC denied both motions, ruling that Nuque’s action was solely for cancellation of title and did not include a prayer for possession, and that its final decision could not be altered.
Nuque filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA), bypassing a motion for reconsideration of the RTC Order. The CA dismissed the petition on March 17, 2010, for failure to file a prior motion for reconsideration, and denied Nuque’s motion for reconsideration on July 21, 2010. Nuque then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Nuque’s Petition for Certiorari for failure to file a prior motion for reconsideration of the RTC Order denying his Motion for Writ of Possession.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Resolutions.
The Court held that the RTC Order denying the Motion for Writ of Possession was a final order, as it disposed of the issue conclusively. The proper remedy against a final order is an appeal, not certiorari. Certiorari is only available when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Nuque failed to demonstrate that an appeal was inadequate or that exceptional circumstances justified bypassing it.
Even assuming certiorari was appropriate, the CA correctly dismissed the petition for Nuque’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration before resorting to certiorari. A motion for reconsideration is generally an indispensable condition to filing a certiorari petition, allowing the lower court to correct its own errors. While exceptions exist—such as where a motion would be futile—Nuque failed to prove that his case fell under any exception. His bare assertion of futility, without concrete justification, was insufficient to dispense with the requirement. The Court emphasized that certiorari is a prerogative writ governed by strict procedural rules, and parties cannot unilaterally determine when to bypass essential steps.
Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the CA’s dismissal, stressing that procedural rules are designed to ensure orderly administration of justice and must be followed absent compelling reasons.