Search for www.chanrobles.com
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Separate Opinion:
DAVIDE, JR., J.,
I concur in the result.
I wish to add, however, that the Court of Appeals should not have
given due course the private respondents special
civil action for certiorari to annul and
set aside the decree issued in favor of the petitioner, which was filed on 14 February 1994 with this Court but
referred to the former.
The order of the trial court in LRC Case No.
B-526 confirming the petitioners imperfect title to the land in question and
ordering its registration in his favor was issued on 13 May 1991. Pursuant thereto, as the ponencia
states, "a decree of registration was
eventually issued, followed by an original certificate of title." Such being
the case, the alternative judicial remedies available to the private respondent
who, by the way, does not even appear to have filed an opposition to the
application for registration, would be (a) a petition to reopen the case, which
must be filed within (1) year from the entry of the decree (Section 32, The
Property Registration Decree [P.D. No. 1529]); (b) an ordinary action for reconveyance (NARCISO PENA, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, 1994 Rev. ed., 132-133); or
(c) an action for damages against the Assurance Fund (Section 32, in relation
to Sections 93-97, Id.). A special
civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is not the
proper remedy, especially in this case where the private respondent was not
even an oppositor, and even if he were his remedy
would have been an ordinary appeal, which cannot be substituted by a special
civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
