GR L 22107; (September, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22107 September 30, 1967
CONSTANTINO TIRONA and THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE ARSENIO NAÑAWA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna and MARIANO RAYMUNDO, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Mariano Raymundo applied for the registration of a parcel of land (Lot 487, Mabitac-Cadastre) on December 22, 1959, docketed as Land Registration Case No. N-80. The application was opposed by petitioner Constantino Tirona, who claimed private ownership of the land, and by the Director of Lands, who claimed it was public land. After multiple hearings, with the applicant almost through presenting evidence, Raymundo filed a petition on September 9, 1963, to hold the case in abeyance or archive it pending clarification of the Land Reform Code. The oppositors objected. Without any party moving for dismissal, respondent Judge Arsenio Nañawa dismissed the case “without prejudice” on September 28, 1963. The oppositors’ motion for reconsideration was denied on October 26, 1963. Petitioners Tirona and the Director of Lands then filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus to set aside the dismissal order and compel the judge to reinstate and proceed with the case.
ISSUE
1. Whether the petition for certiorari is the proper remedy.
2. Whether the dismissal constituted grave abuse of discretion.
3. Whether the respondent Judge can be ordered to reinstate the registration case and proceed with the hearing.
RULING
1. On the propriety of the remedy, the Court held that certiorari is not the proper remedy because an appeal was available. The order of dismissal was a mere error of judgment, not a matter of lack or excess of jurisdiction.
2. On the dismissal’s propriety, the Court held that the respondent Judge erred in dismissing the case over the oppositors’ objection. Section 37 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act), as amended, mandates that in a case with an adverse claim, the court must determine the conflicting interests of the applicant and the adverse claimant. The dismissal “without prejudice” is only conditioned upon the absence of an adverse claimant. Here, there were adverse claimants (Tirona and the Director of Lands), so the court was duty-bound to hear their evidence and resolve their claims. The passage of the Agricultural Land Reform Code (Republic Act 3844) was not a valid ground for dismissal, as it does not affect land registration proceedings and, in fact, encourages the resolution of rights over unregistered property.
3. Despite certiorari being an improper remedy, the Court granted the writ in the interest of justice. The order of dismissal was patently wrong, and dismissing the petition on procedural grounds would leave petitioners without an adequate remedy, as an appeal was no longer available. Petitioner Tirona would be unjustly burdened by having to file a new application. The Court has relaxed the rule on the availability of certiorari when broader interests of justice require it. Therefore, the Court set aside the dismissal order and ordered the respondent Judge (or the presiding judge of the assigned branch) to reinstate Land Registration Case No. N-80 and proceed with hearing and deciding it.