G.R. No. 199783 April 10, 2019
FRANCISCO B. YAP (substituted by his heirs) vs. HEIRS OF PANTALAN (MORO), et al.

FACTS

Petitioner Francisco Yap claimed ownership over a parcel of land, alleging he acquired it via a private deed of sale from the Heirs of Pantalan (Moro). However, in June 1990, the same property was adjudged with finality to belong to respondents Virginia Licuanan-Suson, Virgilio Licuanan, and Victor Licuanan (the Licuanans) in a prior reconveyance case. In June 2008, Yap filed a Complaint for Specific Performance, Reconveyance, and Nullity of Titles against the Heirs of Pantalan and the Licuanans before the RTC of Lupon, Davao Oriental. The Licuanans moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of forum shopping, res judicata, and laches, citing Yap’s previous unsuccessful attempts to intervene in the earlier case and a separate quieting of title case (Civil Case No. 104) involving identical parties and issues, which had been dismissed with finality.
The RTC granted the motion to dismiss. Yap failed to file an ordinary appeal within the reglementary period. Instead, he filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, assailing the RTC’s final orders. The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that certiorari was an improper substitute for a lost appeal, as the assailed RTC orders were final and appealable under Rule 41. Yap’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Yap’s Petition for Certiorari for being a wrong remedy.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s dismissal. The RTC orders dismissing Yap’s complaint were final orders issued in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. Under Sections 1 and 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the proper remedy against such final orders is an ordinary appeal, which must be taken within 15 days from notice. Yap’s failure to timely perfect an ordinary appeal rendered the RTC’s dismissal final and executory. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal; it is only available when there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment.
The Court found no compelling reason to relax procedural rules. Yap’s plea for liberality, based on alleged counsel’s negligence, was unavailing. The Court emphasized that a client is generally bound by the mistakes of his counsel. Moreover, Yap’s litigation history showed a pattern of attempting to relitigate a settled matter. The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on public policy and the sound administration of justice, requiring that once a judgment becomes final, the controversy must end. Thus, the CA committed no error in dismissing the petition for certiorari, and the Supreme Court denied Yap’s petition.