G.R. No. 20151. March 06, 1923

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari. The following facts set forth in
the petition are admitted by the respondents.

“That on the 23d day of May, 1916, a decision was rendered in cadastral case
No. 1 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, G. L. R. O. Cadastral Record No.
1, entitled ‘The Director of Lands, petitioner, vs. Manuel Albayda and
others, claimants,’ in which lots Nos. 3462 and 3463 of said cadaster were
declared public lands.

“That subsequently on the 24th day of December, 1921, the respondent judge of
the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, on petition of the respondent Julio
Javellana, revoked the order of general default in said cadastral case in regard
to said lots Nos. 3462 and 3463, together with the decision of May 23, 1916,
permitting the said respondent Julio Javellana to file his answer or claim in
regard to said lots.

“That on the 9th day of October, 1922, the said respondent judge rendered
another decision ordering the registration of said lots Nos. 3462 and 3463 in
the name of the respondent Julio Javellana.”

It further appears from the record that on November 16, 1922, the
Attorney-General on behalf of the Director of Lands presented a motion in the
court below asking that the decision of October 9, 1922, be declared null and
void. This motion was denied by an order dated November 18, 1922.

The present petition was filed in this court on January 5, 1923, the
petitioner alleging that the court below exceeded its jurisdiction in reopening
the order of general default in the cadastral proceedings over five years after
it was issued and in setting aside the decision rendered on May 23, 1916, and in
ordering the land registered in the name of the respondent Javellana. He
therefore asks that the respondent judge be ordered to certify the record of the
proceedings to this court; that all proceedings subsequent to May 23, 1916, be
declared null and void, and that the respondents pay the costs.

The respondents maintain that both the order of December 24, 1921, reopening
the cadastral case, and the decision of October 9, 1922, have become final and
cannot now be set aside; and that the petitioner has failed to bring properly to
the attention of the court below the alleged error in setting aside the order of
default and granting the reopening of the case by the order of December 24,
1921.

That the court below exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the order of
default and reopening the cadastral case in question over five years after the
decision rendered therein had become final is too obvious for argument.
(See Director of Lands vs. Abada, 41 Phil., 71.) The court having
no jurisdiction, the order of December 24, 1921, and the decision of October 9,
1922, were null and void ab initio and of no effect whatever; they could
therefore not become final in the sense of depriving the petitioner of his right
to question their validity.

There is no merit in the contention that the error of the court below was not
properly brought to its attention; the Attorney-General’s motion of November 16,
1922, brought the matter squarely before the court and was in the nature of a
motion for reconsideration. We may say further that the observance of the
general rule that this court will not entertain a petition for certiorari until
the error complained of has been brought specially to the attention of the court
responsible therefor through a motion for reconsideration, may not be insisted
upon in a case where the proceeding in which the error occurred is a patent
nullity.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the aforementioned
orders of December 24, 1921, and of November 18, 1922, as well as the decision
of October 9, 1922, are hereby declared null and void.

Araullo, C.J.,
Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.