GR 44861; (September, 1936) (Digest)
G.R. No. 44861 ; September 8, 1936
EUGENIO TESTA, petitioner, vs. C. A. VILLAREAL, Judge of First Instance of Bulacan, and MAXIMO DE VERA, ANDRES ROJAS and JOSE TEODORO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Eugenio Testa and his wife were plaintiffs in a land ownership case (Civil Case No. 4453) against respondent Maximo de Vera. The trial court declared Testa the absolute owner of Lot No. 6 but gave de Vera the right to either be indemnified for his useful improvements on the land or, under Article 361 of the Civil Code, to acquire ownership of the land by paying its value. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision. On remand, commissioners were appointed, and the trial court, by order of October 30, 1934, fixed the values and gave both parties the option to pay the other to acquire the property, with preference to de Vera if both deposited simultaneously, as his building’s value exceeded the land’s value. De Vera deposited the payment for the land; Testa did not deposit payment for the improvements nor appeal the order. Subsequently, the court ordered the issuance of a new title in de Vera’s name. Testa then filed this petition for certiorari to annul the proceedings.
ISSUE
Whether a writ of certiorari is the proper remedy to annul the trial court’s order and subsequent proceedings implementing the Supreme Court’s final decision.
RULING
No. The petition for certiorari is denied. The Court held that any error in the trial court’s October 30, 1934, order was an error of law, not an act in excess of jurisdiction. The proper remedy for such an error was an appeal, which Testa failed to avail. Furthermore, Testa was guilty of laches in asserting his rights. Certiorari does not lie to correct errors of law that do not involve lack or excess of jurisdiction.
AI Generated by Armztrong.