RICARDO SANTOS AND PAULA SANTOS WONG, PETITIONERS, VS. ILUMINADA CRUZ, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT GLORIA ISRAEL, JUDGE FRANCISCO LINDO, METC, BRANCH 55, MALABON CITY, RESPO…

Santos versus Cruz

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Ricardo Santos and Paula Santos Wong against Iluminada Cruz, who is represented by her attorney-in-fact Gloria Israel, and against the presiding judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Malabon City. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to annul a joint decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City which, on appeal, reversed the dismissal of two ejectment cases and ordered the petitioners to vacate the lots they occupy and to pay monthly compensation, attorney's fees, and costs. The case matters for two reasons: it is a compact lesson on the procedural discipline required of a petition for certiorari, and it restates the rule that a Torrens certificate of title prevails over an unregistered deed of sale.

Procedural History

Respondent Iluminada Cruz filed two separate actions for ejectment before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Malabon City, Branch 55, against Ricardo Santos and Paula Santos Wong. In a joint decision, the Metropolitan Trial Court dismissed both complaints for failure of the plaintiff to prove her causes of action by preponderance of evidence, and likewise dismissed the defendants' counterclaims for attorney's fees.

Respondent Cruz appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City, Branch 170. The Regional Trial Court reversed and set aside the Metropolitan Trial Court's judgment and entered a new one ordering the petitioners, and all persons claiming rights under them, to vacate and demolish their structures, to surrender possession to the respondent, to pay twenty thousand pesos monthly from the date of the demand letter until they vacate, and to pay thirty thousand pesos as attorney's fees plus costs.

Without moving for reconsideration, the petitioners went directly to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, invoking their right to procedural and substantive due process. The Court issued a resolution requiring them to pay the balance of docket and other legal fees and to submit a certification against forum shopping, a statement of the material date showing when they received notice of the assailed decision, proof of service, and proof of authority of Ricardo Santos to sign the verification for the other petitioner. The petitioners paid the balance and filed a two-page petition that still carried the same procedural defects. The case thus reached the Supreme Court as an original action for certiorari.

Facts

Iluminada Cruz owns two parcels of land in Dampalit, Malabon City, covered by transfer certificates of title registered in her name. Portions of these lots were occupied by her relatives, Ricardo Santos and Paula Santos Wong, who built structures on the land. According to the respondent, the petitioners entered without her consent and built without her permission, but were allowed to stay free of charge on the condition that they would vacate upon demand. Despite repeated demands, they refused to vacate, and no amicable settlement was reached, so she filed the two ejectment cases.

In their answers, the petitioners admitted the respondent's ownership but claimed that portions of the lots had been sold to them. Ricardo Santos alleged that one hundred seventy-seven square meters of the first lot were sold to him and his spouse on August 28, 1978 under a Deed of Absolute Sale. Paula Wong alleged that one hundred forty-two square meters of the second lot were sold to her husband Marcos Santos under a Subdivision Agreement with Contract of Sale dated July 31, 1976. The petitioners relied on photocopies of these documents, which were unregistered.

The Metropolitan Trial Court dismissed the complaints, finding that the respondent failed to prove her causes of action by preponderance of evidence. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court reversed, finding reversible error, and ordered the petitioners to vacate, to pay monthly compensation from the date of the demand letter, and to pay attorney's fees and costs. The petitioners then filed their petition for certiorari without first seeking reconsideration.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition for certiorari may be entertained despite its failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not the petitioners' failure to file a motion for reconsideration bars the petition for certiorari.
• Whether or not the direct resort to the Supreme Court violates the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
• Whether or not the unregistered deed of sale and subdivision contract relied upon by the petitioners can prevail over the Torrens certificates of title in the name of the respondent.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, on the petition for certiorari, provides:

When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

This provision defines the extraordinary remedy the petitioners invoked and supplies the requirements of proper form, the absence of appeal or other plain remedy, and the allegation of grave abuse of discretion.

Section 1 of Rule 65 further requires the petitioner to comply with the rules on forum shopping, and the Court enforced this through its resolution, which quoted the following:

a certification under oath by petitioners that they have not theretofore commenced any other action involving the same issues thereof in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or in the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, they must state the status of the same; and if they should thereafter learn that a similar action has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or in the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, they undertake to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or agency thereof within five days therefrom.

This certification is a mandatory requirement of form, and its absence was one of the defects that doomed the petition.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court dismissed the petition for insufficiency of form and substance. The petition was written on an old and torn piece of scratch paper that did not look like a formal pleading. It lacked a certification against forum shopping, a statement of the material date showing when notice of the assailed decision was received, proof of service, and proof of authority of Ricardo Santos to sign the verification for the other petitioner. These defects persisted even after the Court's resolution gave the petitioners a chance to cure them.

On the second issue, the Court held that a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition before filing a special civil action for certiorari, subject only to certain exceptions. The Court listed those exceptions, including where the order is a patent nullity, where the questions were duly raised and passed upon below, where urgent necessity exists, where a motion would be useless, where the petitioner was deprived of due process with extreme urgency, where the proceedings are a nullity for lack of due process, where the proceedings were ex parte, and where the issue is purely of law or public interest is involved. The petitioners filed no motion for reconsideration, and their general averment that the lower court acted without jurisdiction was incomplete. The Court stressed that a writ of certiorari is a prerogative writ, never demandable as a matter of right, and that a petitioner may not decide for himself whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary.

On the third issue, the Court held that the petition should have been filed with the Court of Appeals under the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. While the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue the writ is concurrent with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals in certain cases, such concurrence does not allow an unrestricted freedom of choice of forum. The petitioners alleged no sufficient ground for direct recourse to the Supreme Court.

On the fourth issue, even on the merits the petition would not prosper. The respondent relied on transfer certificates of title registered in her name, which being genuine and valid on their face are incontrovertible, indefeasible, and conclusive against the petitioners and the whole world. The unregistered deed of sale and subdivision contract upon which the petitioners relied cannot prevail over the certificate of title. To hold otherwise would defeat the primary object of the Torrens System, which is to make the Torrens title indefeasible and valid against the whole world.

Doctrine

A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is a prerogative writ, never demandable as a matter of right, and must be filed strictly in accordance with the Rules. It must allege facts showing that the tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and it must be accompanied by a certification against forum shopping, proof of service, a statement of the material date of receipt of notice, and proof of authority to sign the verification.

A motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition before filing a special civil action for certiorari, subject only to the recognized exceptions, and the petitioner bears the burden of showing a concrete, compelling, and valid reason to dispense with it.

Under the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, direct recourse to the Supreme Court is not a matter of choice; the petition should be filed with the Court of Appeals or the Regional Trial Court unless exceptional and compelling circumstances justify otherwise.

Under the Torrens System, a certificate of title that is genuine and valid on its face is incontrovertible, indefeasible, and conclusive against the whole world, and an unregistered deed of sale cannot prevail over it.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed for insufficiency of form and substance, and the joint decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City was affirmed, with no costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a Torrens certificate of title, genuine and valid on its face, is indefeasible and conclusive against the whole world, and no unregistered deed of sale can prevail over it. Examiners use this case to test the procedural requirements of certiorari, the indispensability of a motion for reconsideration, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, and the supremacy of the Torrens title over unregistered claims.