REMEDIAL LAW 1 > RULE 40-56 > Appeal from

HEIRS OF RETERTA vs. SPS. MORES

G.R. No. 159941; August 17, 2011
DOCTRINE: Certiorari can be the proper remedy despite the availability of appeal or other
remedy if warranted by exceptional reasons such as: (a) when it is necessary to prevent
irreparable damages and injury to a party; (b) where the trial judge capriciously and whimsically
exercised his judgment; (c) where there may be danger of a failure of justice; (d) where an
appeal would be slow, inadequate, and insufficient; (e) where the issue raised is one purely of
law; (f) where public interest is involved; and (g) in case of urgency.
FACTS:
Teofilo Reterta was granted a friar land in Tanza, Cavite, by virtue of his open, exclusive and
continued occupation for more than 30 years. He died in 1983 leaving behind the land to his
heirs, the petitioners. The petitioners discovered in 1999 that there was an affidavit purportedly
executed by their father waiving his rights and interest over the land, and by virtue of such
affidavit, a Sale Certificate and TCT was issued in favor of the respondents.
The petitioners filed an action for quieting of title and reconveyance alleging that such affidavit
was a forgery and the sale certificate and TCT were procured fraudulently.
The respondents filed a motion to dismiss, insisting that the RTC had no jurisdiction on the
ground that the Director of Lands had the exclusive power to the propriety of grant of Friar
lands, and to determine whether or not there is fraud in procuring the sales certificate.
Agreeing with the ground, the RTC granted the Motion to Dismiss. Receiving the Order of
Dismissal on Nov.16, 2001, the petitioners filed an MR on Nov.26. However, the RTC denied the
MR in its order, which was received by the petitioners on March 20, 2002, thus, prompting them
to file a petition for certiorari with the CA on May 15, 2002.
The CA dismissed the petition, holding that certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for the lost
remedy of appeal, considering that the order granting the Motion to Dismiss was a final order
against which the proper remedy was an appeal in due course.
Hence, the appeal to the SC.
ISSUE: WON the Petition for Certiorari was proper.
HELD: YES, Certiorari was proper.
At first, the SC held that the contention of the petitioners that their proper remedy was certiorari
by virtue of Rule 41 was misplaced. According to Sec.1, Rule 41 (not yet amended by AM 7-712 during the decision of the CA) an Order denying a Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration is
one of the cases where no appeal may be taken from and the proper remedy is to avail of
Certiorari under Rule 65. However, in this case, what the petitioners really wanted to obtain
relief from was the Order of Dismissal which finally disposed of the case, and not the denial of
their MR. The general rule is that certiorari is precluded as a remedy against the final order
when appeal is available.
Nonetheless, the SC considered Certiorari as the proper remedy despite the availability of
appeal or other remedy if warranted by exceptional reasons such as: (a) when it is necessary to
prevent irreparable damages and injury to a party; (b) where the trial judge capriciously and
whimsically exercised his judgment; (c) where there may be danger of a failure of justice; (d)

where an appeal would be slow, inadequate, and insufficient; (e) where the issue raised is one
purely of law; (f) where public interest is involved; and (g) in case of urgency.
Thus, the CA should have given due course to and granted the petition for certiorari on two
reasons: (a) the broader interest of justice demanded it in order to avoid the undeserved grossly
unjust result that would befall the petitioners; and (b) the RTCs grant of the MTD on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction evidently constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction.
For the first reason, the petitioners complaint made out a good case considering its allegations,
if duly established, might warrant reconveyance of the land to them from the petitioners, as the
title of a friar land obtained by a grantee may be assailed and nullified if found not in conformity
with the requirements set by law.
For the second, according to BP.129 as amended, the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction
over actions involving title or possession of real property, which includes an action for quieting of
title (considering the jurisdictional amount) and the authority of the Director of Lands (now the
LMB) is limited to the administration and disposition of friar lands, and does not include actions
for reconveyance.