G.R. No. L-26092, October 4, 1926
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NUEVA ECIJA, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Prior to December 4, 1914, Gregorio Crisostomo owned Lot No. 1442 in Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija. On that date, he sold a portion (1,435 sqm) to spouses Esteban del Rosario and Natividad Tiangco. Subsequently, Cadastral Case No. 3 was instituted. By agreement, Crisostomo claimed the entire lot, with the understanding that he would later convey the sold portion to del Rosario. On December 29, 1916, the court adjudicated the entire lot to Crisostomo, but no final decree was entered immediately.

On February 15, 1918, Crisostomo executed a will devising all his lands in Nueva Ecija to the Government for benevolent purposes. He died shortly after. On July 22, 1918, del Rosario and Tiangco filed a motion in the cadastral case to review the adjudication, claiming they had purchased the lot prior to the cadastral proceedings. The Government, represented by the Attorney-General, was notified and, after examining the 1914 deed, withdrew its opposition. The court granted the motion on November 2, 1918, and in June 1920, a certificate of title was issued to the spouses for the entire lot.

The estate of Crisostomo was distributed on October 25, 1921. On December 3, 1923, the Government, through a special attorney, petitioned to set aside the November 2, 1918 order. The court denied this on December 28, 1923, holding the decision was final. In June 1926, the Government filed this petition for certiorari, arguing the 1918 order amended the final 1916 decision and was issued without jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing the order of November 2, 1918, which directed the issuance of a final decree and certificate of title in favor of del Rosario and Tiangco, thereby warranting the grant of a writ of certiorari.

RULING

No, the Court of First Instance did not exceed its jurisdiction. The petition for certiorari is denied.

The Supreme Court held that the respondent court had jurisdiction to issue the November 2, 1918 order. The motion filed by del Rosario and Tiangco alleged facts (i.e., prior sale by Crisostomo) which, if true, could constitute fraud warranting a review of the decree under Section 38 of the Land Registration Act ( Act No. 496 ). Since no final decree had been entered at the time the motion was filed, it was timely. The court had the authority to hear and decide the motion, and all interested parties, including the Government, were duly notified. The Government’s withdrawal of opposition at the hearing further validated the proceeding.

While the order may have been erroneous (as evidence suggested the spouses were entitled only to a portion, not the entire lot), an error of judgment within jurisdiction is not correctible by certiorari. The proper remedy for the Government, if defrauded, would be an ordinary action to compel reconveyance of the wrongfully held portion or an action for damages, though the latter might be barred by the statute of limitations. The Government’s delay (filing in 1926 for a 1918 order) also indicated laches. Certiorari lies only for lack or excess of jurisdiction, not to correct errors of law or fact.