GR L 57102; (June, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-57102 June 29, 1982
HILARIO GAMIAO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. ANDRES B. PLAN, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ISABELA, BRANCH II AT CAUAYAN, SANTIAGO CADELINIA, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners filed a complaint for reconveyance, annulment of deeds of sale, and damages with the Court of First Instance of Isabela. After amending the complaint and the joinder of issues, the respondent judge, without conducting the scheduled pre-trial conference, dismissed the complaint motu proprio. The dismissal order reasoned that the subject land was originally public land disposed of by the Bureau of Lands, culminating in a certificate of title issued to respondent Santiago Cadelinia, and that the Director of Lands has control over such disposition.
The respondents, in their comment, sought the petition’s dismissal, arguing it was an unseasonable special civil action under Rule 65, as the alleged error was one of judgment correctible by appeal, not certiorari. The petitioners’ counsel, however, invoked Section 2, Rule 42, pertaining to ordinary appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint without conducting a pre-trial and based on an irrelevant legal premise.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition. Procedurally, the Court clarified that while counsel erroneously cited the rule on ordinary appeals, the petition was substantively filed pursuant to Republic Act No. 5440 , which governs review of judgments of the Court of First Instance via certiorari. The petition was filed within the 30-day reglementary period for civil cases, making it seasonable.
On the merits, the Court found the dismissal order gravely erroneous. First, it violated the mandatory character of pre-trial under Section 1, Rule 20 of the Rules of Court. The judge dismissed the case without conducting the scheduled pre-trial, depriving the parties of its benefits to clarify issues and explore amicable settlement.
Second, the legal basis for dismissal was irrelevant to the cause of action. The petitioners were not directly assailing the certificate of title issued to Cadelinia by the Bureau of Lands. Their action was one for reconveyance and annulment of deeds, essentially alleging that, despite the title, the respondents held the property under a constructive trust for the petitioners and had a legal duty to reconvey it. The judge’s ruling on the Director of Lands’ control over public land disposition did not address this equitable claim. Consequently, the order was set aside, and the respondent judge was directed to conduct a pre-trial and proceed with the case.