G.R. No. 168848 & G.R. No. 169019, June 30, 2009
HEIRS OF THE LATE JOSE DE LUZURIAGA, represented by JOSE DE LUZURIAGA, JR., HEIRS OF MANUEL R. DE LUZURIAGA, HEIRS OF THE LATE REMEDIOS DE LUZURIAGA-VALERO, and THE LATE NORMA DE LUZURIAGA DIANON, Petitioners, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES thru the OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners, heirs of Jose De Luzuriaga, filed an Application for Registration of Title for Lot No. 1524 of the Bacolod Cadastre before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), docketed as Cadastral Case No. 97-583. They amended their application to seek registration pursuant to Decree No. 22752 dated October 7, 1916, issued by the General Land Registration Office (GLRO) in favor of the late Jose R. De Luzuriaga. The RTC, by Decision dated May 24, 1999, granted the application, confirmed the title of De Luzuriaga, and ordered the issuance of an Original Certificate of Title (OCT). The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), received the decision on June 22, 1999, but did not appeal. Consequently, OCT No. RO-58 was issued in the name of De Luzuriaga.
Subsequently, Dr. Antonio A. Lizares, Co., Inc. (DAALCO) filed a separate complaint for Quieting of Title against petitioners, claiming ownership of the same lot under a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) derived from OCT No. 2765 issued in 1916 in the name of Antonio Lizares. Meanwhile, on November 24, 1999, the Republic filed an unverified Petition for Relief from Judgment before the same RTC, seeking annulment of the May 24, 1999 decision. The Republic argued, among others, that the lot was already covered by a title (OCT No. 2765), making a new registration improper and resulting in “double titling,” and that petitioners’ use of the 1916 decree was barred by laches. The RTC, per Order dated August 31, 2001, denied the petition for being unverified and filed beyond the 60-day period. The RTC also denied the Republic’s motion for reconsideration in an Order dated October 24, 2002, stating that a successor judge cannot review a predecessor’s final judgment.
The Republic then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in its Decision dated November 26, 2004, granted the petition, set aside the RTC orders, and remanded the case to the RTC for reception of evidence to determine if the May 24, 1999 decision resulted in “double titling.” The CA found that the Republic made a prima facie case of double titling, supported by a Report from the Register of Deeds indicating prior registration, and that the merits outweighed procedural technicalities. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated May 25, 2005. Hence, petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via these consolidated petitions.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the Republic’s Petition for Certiorari and remanding the case to the RTC for further proceedings on the issue of “double titling.”

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petitions, reversed the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the RTC Orders dated August 31, 2001 and October 24, 2002, which denied the Republic’s Petition for Relief from Judgment.
The Court held that the Petition for Relief from Judgment was correctly denied by the RTC for being procedurally infirm. First, it was filed out of time. Under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court, a petition for relief must be filed within 60 days from knowledge of the judgment and within 6 months from its entry. The Republic received the RTC decision on June 22, 1999, but filed its petition only on November 24, 1999, which was beyond the 60-day period. Second, the petition was not verified as required by the Rules. The Court emphasized that procedural rules are not to be disregarded lightly. The Republic’s failure to appeal the RTC decision within the reglementary period rendered it final and executory.
On the substantive issue, the Court found that the Republic’s claim of “double titling” was not a proper ground for a petition for relief, which is limited to grounds of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. The allegation that the land was already titled (under OCT No. 2765) pertained to the merits of the case, which should have been raised in a timely appeal, not in a collateral attack via a petition for relief. The RTC decision, having become final, could no longer be disturbed. The Court also noted that the existence of a prior title was a matter of evidence that the Republic failed to present during the original registration proceedings, and its belated attempt to introduce it was improper.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The Republic’s failure to appeal barred it from challenging the RTC decision via certiorari, absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in denying the petition for relief. The RTC committed no such abuse; it correctly applied the procedural rules. Therefore, the CA erred in granting the petition for certiorari and ordering a remand. The Supreme Court reinstated the RTC’s denial of the Petition for Relief from Judgment, thereby upholding the finality of the May 24, 1999 RTC Decision granting registration to petitioners.