G.R. No. L-47270. April 15, 1988. ERNESTO DORIA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE ARTEMON D. LUNA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch I, Silay City; & MANUEL OXIMER, respondents.
FACTS

Petitioner Ernesto Doria filed a complaint for specific performance with damages. He alleged a seven-year agricultural lease over three lots owned by Arcadia Doria, commencing crop year 1973-1974. However, Arcadia Doria had previously executed a separate four-year lease over the same property to Angelina Bedonia, who took possession. Subsequently, on July 24, 1975, Arcadia Doria sold the lots to respondent Manuel Oximer. The deed of sale stipulated Oximer would take possession only after Bedonia’s lease expired. Doria annotated his own lease contract on the certificates of title on August 25, 1975. Oximer registered the sale on November 26, 1976, and new titles were issued carrying the annotation of Doria’s lease.
The trial court dismissed the complaint against Oximer. It reasoned that when Oximer purchased the property on July 24, 1975, Doria’s lease was not yet annotated on the titles. The annotation occurred only on August 25, 1975. Applying the rule on registration, the court held the unrecorded lease was not binding upon Oximer as a third person. Instead of appealing this order of dismissal, Doria filed the instant petition for certiorari directly with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner properly availed of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari to challenge the trial court’s order dismissing the complaint against respondent Oximer.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The proper remedy from the trial court’s order of dismissal was an ordinary appeal to the then Court of Appeals. The petitioner’s choice to bypass this available and adequate remedy rendered the petition for certiorari improper. The function of certiorari is to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Alleged errors in the trial court’s application of the law on registration and its conclusion regarding the binding effect of the unannotated lease upon a third-party buyer involve questions of law or fact appropriately reviewable on appeal. By opting for the wrong remedial path, the petitioner failed to establish a valid ground for the extraordinary writ. The dismissal was thus affirmed on procedural grounds, without reaching the substantive merits of the case concerning the effects of registration under the Torrens system.