Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > April 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20397 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20397. April 29, 1966.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Director of Forestry), Petitioner, v. HON. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, COMMISSIONER OF LAND REGISTRATION EUSTACIO DE LOS REYES and AUREA RAMOS, Respondents.

Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres and Special Attorney Dante Diaz, for the petitioner.

Manuel D. Baldeo, Gilbert D. Camoligan, Manuel R. Edaño and Rolando P. Zabalerio, for the respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. CERTIORARI: CERTIORARI UNAVAILABLE WHERE APPEAL IS THE REMEDY. — Certiorari does not lie where the remedy by appeal has been lost. Time and again the supreme Court has dismissed petitions for certiorari to annul decisions or orders which could have, but have not been appealed, because said remedy cannot take the place of appeal.

2. ID.; FINAL ORDER; APPELLATE COURT CANNOT PASS UPON ISSUES WHERE TO DO SO WOULD RESULT IN A REVIEW OF A FINAL ORDER. — Where the very reasons alleged in the petition for relief submitted to, and overruled by a final order of the respondent court are the same reasons submitted in support of the petition for certiorari, the same may not be passed upon by the appellate court since to do so would result in a review of an order or decision which has already become final.

3. CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS; REOPENING OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT 931; SERVICE UPON THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, SUFFICIENCY OF. — The contention that fraud, misrepresentation and deceit was committed in obtaining a decree of reopening of cadastral proceedings on the ground that no service of petition was served upon the Director of Forestry is untenable because under the benevolent terms of Republic Act 931 it was unnecessary to furnish the Director of Forestry with a copy of said petition, inasmuch as said Act only required service thereof to the Solicitor General, which had been admittedly made.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


This is a petition of the Director of Forestry, on behalf of the Republic, to annul two orders and one decision of the Quezon (Tayabas) Court of First Instance.

The first order (dated April 21, 1961) reads, "upon a verified petition filed by Eustacio de los Reyes, with notice to the Solicitor General, and for the reasons therein stated, and there being no opposition, the order of general default and decision of this Court dated May 22, 1922, declaring lot No. 20 as public land, are hereby set aside insofar as the movant and said lot are concerned; the answer for Lot No. 20, Aurora Cadastre, filed by the movant is admitted; and Deputy Clerk of Court, Eleno M. Joya authorized to receive the evidence of the movant and to submit same thereafter to the Court."

The decision dated May 26, 1961, rendered after submission of evidence, adjudicated Lot No. 20 to Eustacio de los Reyes, on the basis of the following statement of facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The evidence presented by the movant in the hearing is to the effect that Gregorio de los Reyes had been in possession as owner of said Lot No. 20 since the year 1912; that on or about 1917, Gregorio de los Reyes gave the property to his son, the herein claimant Eustacio de los Reyes, who took over the possession of the property; that the property is a pasture land; that the claimant is the actual occupant thereof; that the land is declared for taxation purposes; that the claimant’s possession of the said lot and that of his predecessor in interest has been continuous, public, open peaceful, absolute, exclusive, adverse to the whole world for more than thirty years and in the concept of owner."cralaw virtua1aw library

The second order (dated June 28, 1962), denies the petition for relief from the above decision, and for reopening of the case, which petition was presented by the Bureau of Forestry in April, 1962.

Now this petition for certiorari filed before us October 19, 1962, rests on the allegation that the respondent judge had abused his discretion in issuing the first order of April 21, 1961, and the subsequent decision of May 26, 1961, and in refusing to set them aside despite the fact that they had been obtained "by means of fraud, misrepresentation and deceit on the part of Eustacio de los Reyes." Such deception allegedly consisted of

(a) Not having furnished a copy of the petition to the Director of Forestry who had the administrative jurisdiction, supervision and control over the land in question, . . .

(b) By alleging that claimant-movant was not able to file his claim and to present evidence during the first cadastral hearing of this lot in 1922, when in truth and in fact, claimant-movant’s predecessor-in-interest Gregorio de los Reyes filed his claim and presented evidence . . .

(c) By alleging that his possession over this property is in the concept of an owner, when the same claimant-movant knows very well that this particular property is the same property leased to him by the herein petitioner-movant under Pasture Permit . . .

(d) Allegations that the land in question, Lot No. 20, is uncontested when in truth and in fact, claimant-movant and his counsel knows that the entire lot has been leased to claimant-movant on December 20, 1956.

Required to answer this certiorari petition, the respondents denied the allegations of fraud, offered some explanations, and raised the defense that petitioner should have appealed the order (June 28, 1962) denying his petition for relief and reopening; that such order is now final; and that certiorari does not lie where the remedy by appeal has been lost, because said remedy can not take the place of an appeal.

We consider this defense to be meritorious. Time and again we have dismissed petitions for certiorari to annul decision or orders which could have, but have not been appealed.

Indeed, the very reason alleged in the petition for relief submitted to the Quezon Court are the same reasons now submitted in support of this special remedy. And to pass on them now, would be a review of an order which has already become final.

It may be stated here that the petition to set aside in 1961 the decree of the year 1922, could be, and was granted by the decision of May 1961, under the benevolent terms of Republic Act No. 931. So, contrary to the petitioner’s contention, it was unnecessary to furnish him copy of Eustacio’s petition inasmuch as said Act only required service thereof to the Solicitor General, which had been admittedly made.

As to the other untrue manifestations — (b), (c), and (d) — it is now too late to discuss them because they were the same reasons advanced before the Quezon (Tayabas) court in the motion for relief, which were overruled by the order of June 1962; and this was not appealed. Besides, they run counter to the findings of fact made in the final decision of May 26, above quoted.

This petition must, consequently be denied, as it is denied. The injunction heretofore issued is dissolved.

Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-21752 April 25, 1966 SIMEON HIDALGO v. LA TONDEÑA, INC., ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 377 April 29, 1966 CONCEPCION BOLIVAR v. ABELARDO M. SIMBOL

  • G.R. No. L-15471 April 29, 1966 BENJAMIN T. PONCE v. HQTRS., PHIL. ARMY EFFICIENCY AND SEPARATION BOARD

  • G.R. No. L-18067 April 29, 1966 PEDRO F. NACIONALES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18570 April 29, 1966 BARTOLOME GUIRAO v. EVARISTO VER

  • G.R. No. L-19161 April 29, 1966 MLA. RAILROAD CO. v. MACARIA BALLESTEROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19327 April 29, 1966 AMADO BELLA JARO v. ELPIDIO VALENCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19558 April 29, 1966 LA MALLORCA, ET AL. v. CIRILO D. MENDIOLA

  • G.R. No. L-19576 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19609 April 29, 1966 JOSE NEGRE v. CABAHUG SHIPPING & CO.

  • G.R. No. L-19645 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MARIA (MARUJA) P. VDA. DE YULO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19647 April 29, 1966 IN RE: BENEDICTO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20480 April 29, 1966 CLARA SALAZAR, ET AL. v. FILEMON Q. ORTIZANO

  • G.R. No. L-20709 April 29, 1966 IN RE: ANDRONICO AUGUSTO DY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20710 April 29, 1966 IN RE: PEREGRINA TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21072 April 29, 1966 BRUNO TORRALBA, ET AL. v. ZACARIAS ROSALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21194 April 29, 1966 HAW LIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21285 April 29, 1966 MANUFACTURER’S DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. YU SIU LIONG

  • G.R. No. L-21321 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-19581 April 29, 1966 IN RE: SUSANO SY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19847 April 29, 1966 IN RE: GUADALUPE UY SIOCO NACAGUE TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19502 April 29, 1966 IN RE: PEDRO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21907 April 29, 1966 ATLANTIC MUTUAL INS. CO., ET AL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21457 and L-21461 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-23082 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21778 April 29, 1966 IN RE: CHAN PENG HIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21895 April 29, 1966 IN RE: AGUEDA GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21762 April 29, 1966 IN RE: LEON C. SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21078 April 29, 1966 IN RE: ANTONIO L. CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20715 April 29, 1966 IN RE: WAYNE CHANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20510 April 29, 1966 FELICIDAD TOLENTINO v. EULOGIA BIGORNIA CARDENAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20397 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20188 April 29, 1966 PETER C. SANTOS v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20159 April 29, 1966 MIGUEL GERMANO, ET AL. v. ERENEO SURITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20016 April 29, 1966 IN RE: EMMANUEL YU NAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21446 April 29, 1966 IN RE: LEE TIT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21452 April 29, 1966 IN RE: BENITO KO BOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21477-81 April 29, 1966 FRANCISCA VILUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21493-94 April 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO G. CAINGLET

  • G.R. No. L-21516 April 29, 1966 BUTUAN SAWMILL, INC. v. CITY OF BUTUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21555 April 29, 1966 DOROTEA BALMEO v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21593 April 29, 1966 RAYMUNDA S. DIGRAN v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21695 April 29, 1966 ILDEFONSO AGREDA, ET AL. v. JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21812 April 29, 1966 PAZ TORRES DE CONEJERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22117 April 29, 1966 PAMPANGA SUGAR DEV. CO., INC. v. DONATO QUIROZ

  • G.R. No. L-22120 April 29, 1966 ILUMINADO MOTUS, ET AL. v. CFI OF RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22220 April 29, 1966 A. D. SANTOS, INC. v. CONCHITA VDA. DE SAPON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22454 April 29, 1966 FIREMAN’S FUND INS. CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22594 April 29, 1966 CECILIA RAPADAZ VDA. DE RAPISURA v. NICANOR NICOLAS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 241 April 30, 1966 REBECCA M. MIRANDA v. FRANCISCO FUENTES

  • G.R. No. L-16969 April 30, 1966 R. MARINO CORPUS v. MIGUEL CUADERNO, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-17037 April 30, 1966 EAST ASIATIC CO., LTD., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18032 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO SERDEÑA

  • G.R. No. L-18308 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS TARUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-15823-26 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALBAL SIGAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18867 April 30, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CESARIO OCTOBRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19397 April 30, 1966 TEODORA MATIAS DE BUENCAMINO, ET AL. v. MARIA DIZON DE MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19613 April 30, 1966 ALFONSO G. LOPEZ v. FILIPINAS COMPANIA DE SEGUROS

  • G.R. No. L-19869 April 30, 1966 PATRICIO M. MIGUEL v. JOSE C. ZULUETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20018 April 30, 1966 CHIU HAP CHIU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20155 April 30, 1966 LEXAL PURE DRUG LAB. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20687 April 30, 1966 MAXIMINO VALDEPENAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20721 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN ALAGAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21034 April 30, 1966 IN RE: THOMAS FALLON v. EMILIO CAMON

  • G.R. No. L-21139 April 30, 1966 CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21440 April 30, 1966 SUN BROS. APPLIANCES, INC. v. ANGEL AL. CALUNTAD

  • G.R. No. L-21460 April 30, 1966 AMERICAN MACHINERY & PARTS MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21471 April 30, 1966 VICENTE S. DY REYES, ET AL. v. FRUCTUOSO ORTEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20875 April 30, 1966 RIZAL SURETY & INS. CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21623 April 30, 1966 RIZAL SURETY & INS. CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21760 April 30, 1966 SWITZERLAND GEN. INS. CO., LTD. v. JAVA PACIFIC & HOEGH LINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21685 April 30, 1966 CLETO ASPREC v. VICTORIANO ITCHON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21693 April 30, 1966 PROCOPIO F. ELEAZAR v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-21810 April 30, 1966 ARMANDO ESPERANZA v. ANDRES CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. L-22085 April 30, 1966 IN RE: SEGUNDA VDA. DE GAMIR, ET AL. v. THELMA G. SAWAMOTO

  • G.R. No. L-22143 April 30, 1966 LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. ANTONIO TIONGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22192 April 30, 1966 IN RE: VIRGILIO LIM TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22210 April 30, 1966 PILAR T. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22305 April 30, 1966 PRAXEDES GABRIEL, ET AL. v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23294 April 30, 1966 NAMARCO EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASS’N. v. EMILIANO TABIGNE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23812 April 30, 1966 PRIMO T. OCAMPO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DUQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21191 April 30, 1966 EVERETT STEAMSHIP CORP. v. MUNICIPALITY OF MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20022 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLICERIO SALVACION

  • G.R. No. L-20905 April 30, 1966 MARTA A. VDA. DE CUIZON v. EMILIANO ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20028 & L-20029 April 30, 1966 GREGORIO ATIENZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18514 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO TANIA, ET AL.