G.R. No. L-31426. February 29, 1988.
LUZ CARO, HON. JUDGE UBALDO Y. ARANGEL, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, and HON. JUDGE PERFECTO QUICHO, Presiding Judge, Branch I of the Court of First Instance of Albay, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and BASILIA LAHORRA VDA. DE BENITO, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a parcel of land co-owned by Mario, Alfredo, and Benjamin Benito. After Mario’s death, his estate was under intestate proceedings in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Albay, with his wife Basilia Lahorra Vda. de Benito and his father Saturnino Benito as co-administrators. Benjamin Benito sold his undivided one-third share to Luz Caro. In 1960, Caro filed a petition in the CFI of Sorsogon, acting as a land registration court, to subdivide the property. The petition was accompanied by affidavits of consent from Alfredo Benito, Saturnino Benito, and a mortgagee. The petition was held in abeyance at Caro’s request.
Eight years later, in 1968, Caro filed an ex-parte motion to set the case for hearing. The CFI of Sorsogon, without notice to other parties, proceeded ex-parte and issued an order directing the issuance of a separate title for Caro’s segregated portion. The Register of Deeds issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4978 to Caro. Relying on this title, Caro filed a motion in the CFI of Albay presiding over the intestate proceedings, which then issued an order directing administratrix Basilia Lahorra to deliver possession of the segregated lot to Caro and enjoining her from gathering its produce.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether the CFI of Sorsogon and the CFI of Albay had jurisdiction to issue their respective orders; and (2) whether a special civil action for certiorari was the proper remedy to assail these orders.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision nullifying the orders for having been issued without jurisdiction. On the first issue, the CFI of Sorsogon, acting as a land registration court, did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition for subdivision due to lack of the notice required under Section 112 of Act No. 496 (The Land Registration Act). Such notice to all parties in interest is jurisdictional. The court’s failure to provide notice, despite the existence of affidavits of consent from some parties, rendered its proceedings void. The consent of Saturnino Benito, a co-administrator, did not bind the estate or the co-administratrix, Basilia Lahorra, as the required judicial notice was not given. Consequently, the order and the resulting title issued to Caro were null and void. A void order confers no rights. Therefore, the subsequent order of the CFI of Albay, which relied on this void title to compel delivery of possession, was also void.
On the second issue, the Supreme Court held that certiorari was the appropriate remedy. An order issued by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged at any time in any proceeding. It is not merely an error in the exercise of jurisdiction but a complete absence of jurisdiction from the outset. Thus, the special civil action for certiorari was correctly availed of to annul these void orders. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.