FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 176508. January 12, 2015.]

SAINT MARY CRUSADE TO ALLEVIATE POVERTY OF BRETHREN

FOUNDATION, INC. , petitioner, vs . HON. TEODORO T. RIEL, ACTING
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, NATIONAL CAPITAL
JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 85, QUEZON CITY , respondent.

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES , intervenor.

DECISION

BERSAMIN , J : p

A petition for the judicial reconstitution of a Torrens title must strictly comply with
the requirements prescribed in Republic Act No. 26; 1 otherwise, the petition should be
dismissed.
This case is a direct resort to the Court by petition for certiorari and mandamus. The
petitioner applied for the judicial reconstitution of Original Certi cate of Title (OCT) No.
1609 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, and for the issuance of a new OCT in place
thereof, docketed as L.R.C. Case No. Q-18987 (04), but respondent Acting Presiding Judge
of Branch 85 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Quezon City dismissed the petition for
reconstitution through the assailed order dated September 12, 2006. The petitioner
alleges that the respondent Judge thereby committed grave abuse of discretion and
unlawful neglect of performance of an act speci cally enjoined upon him. Equally assailed
is the ensuing denial of its motion for reconsideration through the order dated February 5,
2007.
The antecedents follow.
On October 28, 2004, the petitioner claimed in its petition for reconstitution that the
original copy of OCT No. 1609 had been burnt and lost in the re that gutted the Quezon
City Register of Deeds in the late 80's. Initially, respondent Judge gave due course to the
petition, but after the preliminary hearing, he dismissed the petition for reconstitution
through the first assailed order of September 12, 2006, 2 to wit:
With the receipt of Report dated July 14, 2006 from Land Registration
Authority (LRA) recommending that the petition be dismissed, and considering the
Opposition led by the Republic of the Philippines and University of the
Philippines, the above-entitled petition is hereby ordered DISMISSED.

On October 11, 2006, the petitioner moved for reconsideration of the dismissal, 3
attaching the following documents to support its petition for reconstitution, namely: (1)
the copy of the original application for registration dated January 27, 1955; (2) the notice
of initial hearing dated June 23, 1955; (3) the letter of transmittal to the Court of First
Instance in Quezon City; (4) the copy of the Spanish Testimonial Title No. 3261054 dated
March 25, 1977 in the name of Eladio Tiburcio; (5) the copy of Tax Assessment No. 14238;
and (6) the approved Plan SWD-37457. SAaTHc

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 On February 5, 2007, the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of any
cogent or justifiable ground to reconsider. 4
Hence, on February 22, 2007, the petitioner came directly to the Court alleging that
respondent Judge had "unfairly abused his discretion and unlawfully neglected the
performance of an act which is speci cally enjoined upon him as a duly [ sic] under Rule 7,
Section 8, of the Revised Rules of Court;" 5 that "in nally dismissing the herein subject
Petition for Reconsideration, respondent Honorable Acting Presiding Judge has acted
without and in excess of his authority and with grave abuse of discretion to the further
damage and prejudice of the herein petitioner;" 6 and that it had no other remedy in the
course of law except through the present petition for certiorari and mandamus.
Issues
The Court directed respondent Judge and the O ce of the Solicitor General (OSG)
to comment on the petition for certiorari and mandamus. Respondent Judge submitted his
comment on May 23, 2007, 7 and the OSG its comment on July 19, 2007. 8 On November
13, 2007, the University of the Philippines (UP) sought leave to intervene, attaching to its
motion the intended comment/opposition-in-intervention. 9 The motion for the UP's
intervention was granted on November 28, 2007. 10 In turn, the petitioner presented its
consolidated reply on February 8, 2008. 11 The parties, except respondent Judge, then filed
their memoranda in compliance with the Court's directive.
Respondent Judge justi ed the dismissal of the petition for reconstitution by citing
the opposition by the OSG and the UP, as well as the recommendation of the Land
Registration Authority (LRA). He pointed out that the petitioner did not present its
purported Torrens title to be reconstituted; that the petitioner's claim was doubtful given
the magnitude of 4,304,623 square meters as the land area involved; 12 and that the UP's
ownership of the portion of land covered by petitioner's claim had long been settled by the
Court in a long line of cases. 13
The OSG and the UP argued that by directly coming to the Court by petition for
certiorari a n d mandamus, the petitioner had availed itself of the wrong remedies to
substitute for its lost appeal; that the correct recourse for the petitioner was an appeal
considering that the two assailed orders already nally disposed of the case; that the
petitioner intended its petition for certiorari and mandamus to reverse the nal orders; 14
that the petitioner further failed to observe the doctrine of hierarchy of courts, despite the
Court of Appeals (CA) having concurrent jurisdiction with the Court over special civil
actions under Rule 65; 15 that the RTC would have gravely erred had it proceeded on the
petition for reconstitution despite the petitioner not having noti ed the adjoining owners
of the land or other parties with interest over the land; 16 that the petitioner had no factual
and legal bases for reconstitution due to its failure to prove the existence and validity of
the certi cate of title sought to be reconstituted, in addition to the ownership of the land
covered by the petition for reconstitution being already settled in a long line of cases; that
the petitioner's claim over the land was derived from the Deed of Assignment executed by
one Marcelino Tiburcio — the same person whose claim had long been settled and
disposed of in Tiburcio v. People's Homesite and Housing Corporation and University of
the Philippines (106 Phil. 477), which vested title in the UP, and in Cañero v. University of
the Philippines (437 SCRA 630); and that the Deed of Transfer and Conveyance dated
November 26, 1925 executed by Tiburcio in favor of St. Mary Village Association, Inc. was
not a basis for the judicial reconstitution of title accepted under Section 2 of Republic Act
No. 26. EICSTa

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 In its memorandum, the petitioner indicates that the RTC gravely abused its
discretion amounting to lack or excess of its jurisdiction in dismissing its petition for
reconstitution on the basis of the recommendation of the LRA and the opposition of the
Republic and the UP despite having initially given due course to the petition for
reconstitution. It urges that the dismissal should be overturned because it was not given a
chance to comment on the recommendation of the LRA, or to controvert the oppositions
filed. 17 It contends that the LRA report did not substantiate the allegation of dismissal of
the application for registration of Marcelino Tiburcio on October 17, 1955, in addition to
the veracity of the report being questionable by virtue of its not having been under oath. 18
Ruling
The petition for certiorari and mandamus, being devoid of procedural and
substantive merit, is dismissed.
Firstly, certiorari,being an extraordinary remedy, is granted only under the conditions
defined by the Rules of Court. The conditions are that: (1) the respondent tribunal, board or
o cer 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 (2) there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. 19 Without jurisdiction means that the court acted with absolute
lack of authority; there is excess of jurisdiction when the court transcends its power or
acts without any statutory authority; grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or excess of jurisdiction; in
other words, power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion,
prejudice, or personal hostility; and such exercise is so patent or so gross as to amount to
an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty enjoined or to
act at all in contemplation of law. 20
The petition for certiorari and mandamus did not show how respondent Judge could
have been guilty of lacking or exceeding his jurisdiction, or could have gravely abused his
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Under Section 12 21 of Republic Act
No. 26, the law on the judicial reconstitution of a Torrens title, the Regional Trial Court (as
the successor of the Court of First Instance) had the original and exclusive jurisdiction to
act on the petition for judicial reconstitution of title. Hence, the RTC neither lacked nor
exceeded its authority in acting on and dismissing the petition. Nor did respondent Judge
gravely abuse his discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction considering that
the petition for reconstitution involved land already registered in the name of the UP, as
con rmed by the LRA. Instead, it would have been contrary to law had respondent Judge
dealt with and granted the petition for judicial reconstitution of title of the petitioner.
Secondly, the petitioner did not present the duplicate or certi ed copy of OCT No.
1609. Thereby, it disobeyed Section 2 and Section 3 of Republic Act No. 26, the provisions
that expressly listed the acceptable bases for judicial reconstitution of an existing Torrens
title, to wit:
Sec. 2. Original certi cates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the
sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:

(a) The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title;

(b) The co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate of the certi cate of
title;

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 (c) A certi ed copy of the certi cate of title, previously issued by the
register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;

(d) An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the

case may be, pursuant to which the original certificate of title was issued; aHcACI

(e) A document, on le in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the

description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased or
encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original
had been registered; and
(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is su cient
and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title.
Sec. 3. Transfer certi cates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the
sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:
(a) The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title;

(b) The co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate of the certi cate of

title;
(c) A certi ed copy of the certi cate of title, previously issued by the
register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;
(d) The deed of transfer or other document, on le in the registry of deeds,
containing the description of the property, or an authenticated copy thereof,
showing that its original had been registered, and pursuant to which the lost or
destroyed transfer certificate of title was issued;
(e) A document, on le in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the
description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased or
encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original
had been registered; and

(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is su cient
and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title.

Thirdly, with the questioned orders of the RTC having nally disposed of the
application for judicial reconstitution, nothing more was left for the RTC to do in the case.
As of then, therefore, the correct recourse for the petitioner was to appeal to the Court of
Appeals by notice of appeal within 15 days from notice of the denial of its motion for
reconsideration. By allowing the period of appeal to elapse without taking action, it
squandered its right to appeal. Its present resort to certiorari is impermissible, for an
extraordinary remedy like certiorari cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal. That the
extraordinary remedy of certiorari is not an alternative to an available remedy in the
ordinary course of law is clear from Section 1 of Rule 65, which requires that there must be
no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Indeed,
no error of judgment by a court will be corrected by certiorari, which corrects only
jurisdictional errors. 22
Fourthly, the ling of the instant special civil action directly in this Court is in
disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Although the Court has concurrent
jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals in issuing the writ of certiorari, direct resort is
allowed only when there are special, extra-ordinary or compelling reasons that justify the
same. The Court enforces the observance of the hierarchy of courts in order to free itself
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 from unnecessary, frivolous and impertinent cases and thus afford time for it to deal with
the more fundamental and more essential tasks that the Constitution has assigned to it. 23
There being no special, important or compelling reason, the petitioner thereby violated the
observance of the hierarchy of courts, warranting the dismissal of the petition for
certiorari.
Finally, the land covered by the petition for judicial reconstitution related to the same
area that formed the UP campus. The UP's registered ownership of the land comprising its
campus has long been settled under the law. Accordingly, the dismissal of the petition for
judicial reconstitution by respondent Judge only safeguarded the UP's registered
ownership. In so doing, respondent Judge actually heeded the clear warnings to the lower
courts and the Law Profession in general against mounting or abetting any attack against
such ownership. One such warning was that in Cañero v. University of the Philippines, 24 as
follows: TACEDI

We strongly admonish courts and unscrupulous lawyers to stop

entertaining spurious cases seeking further to assail respondent UP's title. These
cases open the dissolute avenues of graft to unscrupulous land-grabbers who
prey like vultures upon the campus of respondent UP. By such actions, they
wittingly or unwittingly aid the hucksters who want to earn a quick buck by
misleading the gullible to buy the Philippine counterpart of the proverbial London
Bridge. It is well past time for courts and lawyers to cease wasting their time and
resources on these worthless causes and take judicial notice of the fact that
respondent UP's title had already been validated countless times by this Court.
Any ruling deviating from such doctrine is to be viewed as a deliberate intent to
sabotage the rule of law and will no longer be countenanced. 2 5

WHEREFORE , the Court DISMISSES the petition for certiorari and mandamus for
lack of merit; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Perez and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. An Act Providing a Special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certificates of Title
Lost or Destroyed.
2. Rollo, p. 24.
3. Id. at 25-29.
4. Id. at 32-33.

5. Id. at 5.
6. Id.

7. Id. at 40-45.
8. Id. at 107-133.

9. Id. at 136-151.
10. Id. at 153.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 11. Id. at 155-158.

12. Id. at 41.

13. Listing the cases as Tiburcio v. P.H.H.C., 106 Phil. 477 (1959); Galvez v. Tuason, No. L-
15644, February 29, 1964, 10 SCRA 344; People's Homesite and Housing Corporation v.
Mencias, No. L-24114, August 16, 1967, 20 SCRA 1031; Varsity Hills, Inc. v. Mariano, No.
L-30546, June 30, 1998, 163 SCRA 132; Heirs of Antonio Pael v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 133547, November 11, 2003, 415 SCRA 451; Cañero v. University of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 156380, September 8, 2004, 437 SCRA 630.

14. Rollo, pp. 275-276 (Memorandum of Republic); pp. 190-191 (Memorandum of UP).
15. Id. at 277-290; 191-192.
16. Id. at 281-284; 189-190.
17. Id. at 309-311.

18. Id. at 310-311.

19. Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
20. De los Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169498, December 11, 2008, 573 SCRA 691,
700.
21. Sec. 12. Petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated in sections 2 (c), 2 (d), 2 (e), 2
(f), 3 (c), 3 (d), 3 (e) and/or 3 (f) of this Act, shall be filed with the proper Court of
First Instance , by the registered owner, his assigns, or any person having an interest in
the property. The petition shall state or contain, among other things, the following: (a)
that the owner's duplicate of the certificate of title had been lost or destroyed; (b) that no
co-owner's mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate had been issued, or, if any had been issued,
the same had been lost or destroyed; (c) the location, area and boundaries of the
property; (d) the nature and description of the buildings or improvements, if any, which
do not belong to the owner of the land, and the names and addresses of the owners of
such buildings or improvements; (e) the names and addresses of the occupants or
persons in possession of the property, of the owners of the adjoining properties and all
persons who may have any interest in the property; (f) a detailed description of the
encumbrances, if any, affecting the property; and (g) a statement that no deeds or other
instruments affecting the property have been presented for registration, or, if there be
any, the registration thereof has not been accomplished, as yet. All the documents, or
authenticated copies thereof, to be introduced in evidence in support of the petition for
reconstitution shall be attached thereto and filed with the same: Provided, That in case
the reconstitution is to be made exclusively from sources enumerated in section 2 (f) of
3 (f) of this Act, the petition shall be further be accompanied with a plan and technical
description of the property duly approved by the Chief of the General Land Registration
Office, or with a certified copy of the description taken from a prior certificate of title
covering the same property.
22. Rigor v. Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 167400, June 30, 2006, 494 SCRA
375, 378-379.
23. Bañez, Jr. v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 159508, August 29, 2012, 679 SCRA 237, 250.

24. G.R. No. 156380, September 8, 2004, 437 SCRA 630.

25. Id. at 646-647.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com