Angara vs. Fedman Development Corporation

Certiorari under Rule 65 does not lie to correct interlocutory orders or errors of judgment; it is confined to errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The RTC, having jurisdiction over the case, could reject the commissioners' report and deny the impleading prayer without grave abuse, since the report was not binding and petitioner failed to identify or establish the indispensable status of adjoining owners.

Edgardo J. Angara, a Senator of the Philippines, and Fedman Development Corporation owned adjoining parcels of land in Barangay Balaytigue, Nasugbu, Batangas. Fedman held Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-51824, T-51825, and T-51826 covering 67,500 square meters, while Angara claimed four contiguous parcels under Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-23875, T-20526, T-25093, and T-25092. The dispute concerned an alleged encroachment or overlapping of boundaries between their properties. The procedural setting implicated Rule 65 certiorari, the rule on commissioners' reports under Rule 32, and the rules on indispensable and necessary parties under Rule 3.

Fedman Development Corporation was the registered owner of several adjoining lots in Barangay Balaytigue, Nasugbu, Batangas, including three adjoining lots covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-51824, T-51825, and T-51826 with a total area of 67,500 square meters. Edgardo J. Angara, then a Senator of the Philippines, claimed lawful ownership of four contiguous and adjacent parcels in the same barangay covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-23875, T-20526, T-25093, and T-25092. The controversy concerned whether Angara's property lay outside or inside the property titled in Fedman's name.

In August 1995, Fedman learned that Angara had fenced the parcels without its knowledge and consent. On August 28, 1995, Fedman informed Angara that the fenced lots were titled in its name. In deference to Angara's position as Senator, Fedman undertook a relocation survey of the properties. The relocation survey disclosed that the lots fenced and occupied by Angara were covered by Fedman's certificates of title. Despite demand, Angara refused to vacate the property. Fedman thus filed a complaint for accion reinvindicatoria and/or quieting of title.

In his Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims, Angara averred that he was the lawful owner of the four contiguous parcels, that those parcels did not encroach on Fedman's property, and that, assuming encroachment, he had acquired title by acquisitive prescription. At the January 26, 1999 pre-trial, the RTC opined that the primordial issue was whether Angara's property was outside or inside the property titled in Fedman's name. On March 4, 1999, at the instance of the parties, the RTC authorized a ground relocation survey of the adjoining lots by geodetic engineers. On December 9, 1999, the RTC ordered the constitution of a committee of three surveyors: Geodetic Engineer Esmael Bausas for Angara, Geodetic Engineer Filemon Munar for Fedman, and Geodetic Engineer Rodolfo Macalino of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Region IV, as chairman, mandated to conduct a relocation survey on the subject property. In February 2000, the committee members submitted their individual reports on the relocation survey. On June 22, 2000, the RTC issued a subpoena ad testificandum to the three geodetic engineers to testify in connection with their individual reports.

The RTC later dismissed the case on September 27, 2000 due to Fedman's failure to prosecute for an unreasonable length of time, but reconsidered the dismissal upon Fedman's motion. On September 18, 2001, Angara filed an Omnibus Motion praying that judgment be rendered on the basis of the commissioners' report and, alternatively, that all other persons who would be adversely affected by the relocation survey be impleaded as parties. On November 13, 2001, the RTC denied the Omnibus Motion. It held that, according to Fedman, no joint survey was conducted by the commissioners as ordered and agreed upon, so the commissioners' report could not be the basis of judgment. As to the alternative prayer, the RTC ruled that it could not be assumed that adjoining owners had common defenses because they acquired their land from different sources, and joining them would only complicate the issues and prolong adjudication. On January 14, 2002, the RTC denied Angara's motion for reconsideration, holding that the record was replete with explicit motions and orders calling for a joint survey; that the surveyor's report was not compliant with the order to make a joint survey; and that Angara did not name any supposed indispensable parties.

The Court of Appeals found that Angara's contention regarding the conduct of the relocation survey was belied by records replete with explicit motions and orders calling for a joint survey, and that the alleged owners of adjacent lands could not be considered indispensable parties under Section 7 of Rule 3. The RTC did not adopt the surveys and reports of the individual commissioners and chose not to give credence to the observation of one surveyor that the affected parties were all indispensable parties because the report was not in compliance with its order to make a joint survey. It also noted that petitioner did not identify the property owners allegedly affected or who would be affected by the suit.

• Commissioners' Report: Petitioner argued that the RTC erred in failing to declare its orders rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, because there was no plausible and substantive explanation or justification for the RTC to completely ignore the report(s) of the panel of commissioners and to act or render judgment on the basis thereof; respondent never impugned the integrity of the relocation survey and never alleged fraud, mistake, or inexcusable negligence in its conduct; the RTC should have considered the merits of the report and acted on its recommendation instead of rejecting it outright.
• Joint Survey: Petitioner maintained that there was nothing in the RTC's order defining or specifying what a "joint" survey is; the term has various meanings; the commissioners acted together, met, fixed and agreed on rules, and set out to do their jobs to attain a common objective; a joint survey requiring the commissioners to literally go out together, survey in one another's presence, and prepare one report could not have been contemplated because the commissioners nominated by the parties insisted on two different methods or approaches; respondent's commissioner never objected to the conduct or result of the survey.
• Impleading Adjoining Owners: Petitioner argued that the RTC's refusal to alternatively direct respondent to implead the surrounding property owners in the former Hacienda Balaytigue who were directly affected by any judgment, as shown by the report(s) of the panel of commissioners, contravened Section 7 and Section 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules of Court; the RTC and the CA refused to acknowledge Engr. Macalino's observation that respondent's survey approach would cause significant movement in the position of petitioner's property and other lot owners.
• Technical Expertise: Petitioner argued that it was fair, desirable, practical, and in accord with the ends of law and the prompt administration of justice that the issue of incorrect or overlapping boundaries be determined by the proper government agencies equipped with technical expertise, as suggested by respondent's own representative to the panel of commissioners.
• Timeliness: Petitioner claimed that he timely filed an omnibus motion for the RTC to decide or act on the survey report of the commissioners, and recounted the proceedings, pointing out that respondent's present counsel was not the same one who initially handled the case and merely relied on the records.

• Prematurity and Procedural Posture: Respondent pointed out that the Commissioners' Report was submitted as early as February 2000; after its submission, petitioner did not ask that a decision be rendered based on said report; various hearings were held; it was only after respondent presented two witnesses who testified on the illegal encroachment of petitioner that petitioner suddenly asked the RTC not to continue with the proceedings and that judgment be rendered based on the Commissioners' Report.
• No Joint Survey or Report: Respondent stressed that no joint survey was conducted and no joint report was submitted as required by the RTC; even assuming a joint survey, the parties' joint manifestation and motion submitted on April 3, 1997 stated that the results of the joint survey were by no means final and binding upon them but would only serve to guide the lower court; the records were replete with motions and orders for a joint survey report; the RTC was not a mere rubber stamp of the commissioners and could intelligently decide only after the parties completed presentation of evidence.
• Impleading All Property Owners: Respondent averred that petitioner should not be allowed to implead all property owners in Nasugbu, Batangas because the properties in the area had been the subject of requisite surveys by proper government agencies and no questions had been raised; the properties of respondent and petitioner had a common tie line and were based on the same BLLM 1 as determined by the Bureau of Land; approaching the survey based on historical occupancy would be difficult, subjective, and would ultimately destroy the integrity of the Torrens system; petitioner never alleged massive movement of the lands in his answer, and a defense not alleged in the answer is barred especially when trial has already commenced and no evidence has been adduced in support thereof.
• Indispensable Parties: Respondent posited that the RTC correctly denied the prayer to implead adjoining property owners since petitioner did not identify who these persons were or whether they would be affected by the outcome of the litigation.

• Certiorari against Interlocutory Orders: Whether certiorari under Rule 65 lies to review the RTC's denial of petitioner's Omnibus Motion, which involved interlocutory orders not touching the merits of the case.
• Grave Abuse — Commissioners' Report: Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in refusing to render judgment based on the commissioners' report.
• Grave Abuse — Impleading Adjoining Owners: Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner's prayer to implead adjoining property owners.
• Indispensable or Necessary Parties: Whether the adjoining property owners are indispensable or necessary parties under Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.

• Certiorari against Interlocutory Orders: No. Certiorari under Rule 65 is narrow and inflexible, available only for errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion; the RTC orders were interlocutory and any error was an error of judgment correctible by appeal, not certiorari.
• Grave Abuse — Commissioners' Report: No. The trial court is not bound by the commissioners' report and may adopt, modify, reject, recommit it with instructions, or require further evidence under Section 11, Rule 32; petitioner failed to show grave abuse.
• Grave Abuse — Impleading Adjoining Owners: No. Petitioner did not identify the affected owners, and the RTC cannot order a blanket inclusion of property owners in the entire Barangay Balaytigue; petitioner also failed to show the requisite interest of the adjoining owners.
• Indispensable or Necessary Parties: No. Joinder was not warranted because the RTC did not adopt the surveys and reports of the individual commissioners, and petitioner failed to show that the adjoining owners were indispensable or necessary parties under Rule 3.

• Certiorari against Interlocutory Orders: Certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in character; it is not a general utility tool and offers only a limited form of review. Its principal function is to keep an inferior tribunal within its jurisdiction, and it can be invoked only for an error of jurisdiction—where the act complained of was issued without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Excess of jurisdiction means an act within the general power of a tribunal but not authorized and invalid with respect to the particular proceeding because the conditions for exercising the general power are wanting; absence of jurisdiction means lack or want of legal power, right, or authority to hear and determine a cause. Grave abuse of discretion implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary exercise by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, so patent or gross as to amount to evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. Not every error in proceeding or erroneous conclusion of law or fact is abuse of discretion. The assailed RTC orders were resolutions on incidental matters that did not touch the merits or put an end to the proceedings; they were interlocutory because something else remained to be done by the RTC on the merits. The ordinary remedy against an interlocutory order is not certiorari but continuation of the case and appeal from an unfavorable verdict, except where special circumstances clearly demonstrate the inadequacy of appeal; no such special circumstances existed. The wisdom or soundness of the RTC's orders involved a matter of judgment not properly reviewable by certiorari, which is intended to correct defects of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or matters in the RTC's findings or conclusions. An error of judgment committed in the exercise of legitimate jurisdiction is not grave abuse of discretion; errors of judgment are correctible by appeal, while jurisdictional errors are reviewable by certiorari. Where the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, its orders or decisions upon all questions pertaining to the cause are within its jurisdiction and, however erroneous, cannot be corrected by certiorari. The CA therefore erred in delving into the wisdom and soundness of the RTC's orders, because the supervisory jurisdiction to issue a certiorari writ cannot be exercised to review the intrinsic correctness of the lower court's judgment on law or facts. Absent a showing that there was reason to annul the decision or substitute the Court's own judgment, it was not the office of the Court in a certiorari petition to inquire into the correctness of the assailed decision or resolution; a writ of certiorari is not intended to correct every controversial interlocutory ruling.
• Grave Abuse — Commissioners' Report: Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying his prayer for rendition of judgment based on the commissioners' report. The Rules of Court clearly provide that the trial court is not bound by the findings of the commissioners or precluded from disregarding the same. Under Section 11, Rule 32 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, after the report is set for hearing, the court shall issue an order adopting, modifying, or rejecting the report in whole or in part, or recommitting it with instructions, or requiring the parties to present further evidence before the commissioner or the court. The RTC thus had authority to reject the report, particularly since it found that the report was not in compliance with its order to make a joint survey.
• Grave Abuse — Impleading Adjoining Owners: Petitioner likewise failed to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion in the denial of his prayer to implead adjoining property owners. The RTC correctly observed that petitioner did not identify the property owners allegedly affected or who would be affected by the suit. The RTC could not simply order a blanket inclusion of property owners in the entire Barangay Balaytigue, Nasugbu, Batangas as parties-defendants; it was petitioner's responsibility to state the names of all persons whom he claimed would be affected by the suit or any judgment therein. Besides, petitioner did not show positively that the adjoining property owners either had such an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final adjudication could not be made in their absence without injuring or affecting their interest, or that they ought to be joined as parties if complete relief were to be accorded to those already parties, for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action. More importantly, joinder of adjoining property owners was not warranted since the RTC did not adopt the surveys and reports of the individual commissioners. The RTC chose not to give credence to the observation of one surveyor that the parties affected were all indispensable parties because the report of the surveyors was not in compliance with its order to make a joint survey.
• Indispensable or Necessary Parties: The rules on joinder require indispensable parties—parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had—to be joined as plaintiffs or defendants, and permit joinder of necessary parties who are not indispensable but ought to be joined if complete relief is to be accorded or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim. Petitioner did not identify the alleged adjoining owners or establish that they fell within either category. Because the RTC did not adopt the commissioners' reports, the surveyor's observation that all affected parties were indispensable could not support compulsory joinder. The denial of the impleading prayer was therefore not grave abuse of discretion.

• Certiorari under Rule 65 — Certiorari is a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in character; it is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop. It offers only a limited form of review, and its principal function is to keep an inferior tribunal within its jurisdiction. It may be invoked only for an error of jurisdiction, meaning an act issued without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In this case, the RTC's orders were interlocutory and any error was an error of judgment, not correctible by certiorari.
• Grave abuse of discretion — Grave abuse of discretion implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or an exercise of power in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility. It must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. Not every error in proceeding or erroneous conclusion of law or fact is abuse of discretion. Petitioner failed to show such grave abuse in the RTC's denial of his Omnibus Motion.
• Interlocutory order — An interlocutory order is one that does not touch the merits of the case or put an end to the proceedings; something else remains to be done by the trial court with respect to the merits. The ordinary remedy against an interlocutory order is not certiorari but to continue with the case and appeal from an unfavorable verdict, except where special circumstances clearly demonstrate the inadequacy of appeal. The RTC orders denying the Omnibus Motion were interlocutory, and no special circumstances existed.
• Commissioner's report — The trial court is not bound by the findings of commissioners or precluded from disregarding the same. It may adopt, modify, or reject the report in whole or in part, recommit it with instructions, or require the parties to present further evidence before the commissioner or the court. The RTC could reject the commissioners' report because it found the report non-compliant with its order to make a joint survey.
• Indispensable party — An indispensable party is a party in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action; such party shall be joined either as plaintiff or defendant. Petitioner failed to identify the alleged adjoining owners or show that they had such an interest that a final adjudication could not be made in their absence without injuring or affecting their interest.
• Necessary party — A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action. Petitioner did not show that the adjoining owners ought to be joined on this basis, and the RTC did not adopt the commissioners' reports that supposedly identified them.

• "Certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in character. It is not a general utility tool in the legal workshop." — This passage states the Court's threshold characterization of certiorari, explaining why the remedy cannot be used to review the RTC's interlocutory orders.
• "Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law." — This is the Court's canonical formulation of grave abuse of discretion, the only jurisdictional error that could justify certiorari over the RTC's acts.
• "The Rules of Court clearly provides that the trial court is not bound by the findings of the commissioners or precluded from disregarding the same. It may adopt, modify, reject the report or recommit it with instructions, or require the parties to present further evidence." — This passage supplies the ratio for rejecting petitioner's claim that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in refusing to render judgment on the commissioners' report.
• "The RTC cannot simply order a blanket inclusion of property owners in the entire Barangay Balaytigue, Nasugbu, Batangas as parties-defendants in the case. It is the petitioner's responsibility to state the names of all the persons whom he claims will be affected by the suit or any judgment therein." — This passage explains why the denial of the prayer to implead adjoining property owners was not grave abuse of discretion.

• Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 409 SCRA 455, 479 (2003) — Cited for the rule that certiorari is narrow and inflexible and that the supervisory jurisdiction to issue a certiorari writ cannot be exercised to review the intrinsic correctness of the lower court's judgment.
• Toyota Motor Phils. Corporation Workers' Association (TMPCWA) vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 148924, September 24, 2003 — Cited for the definitions of errors of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.
• Okabe vs. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 150185, May 27, 2004 — Cited for the rule that when the court has jurisdiction, erroneous findings are at most errors of law and not abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari.
• De Baron vs. Court of Appeals, 368 SCRA 407, 415 (2001) — Cited for grave abuse of discretion and for the rule that orders upon questions pertaining to the cause, however erroneous, cannot be corrected by certiorari where jurisdiction exists.
• Sps. Samson vs. Rivera, G.R. No. 154355, May 20, 2004 — Cited for distinguishing errors of judgment from errors of jurisdiction.
• Indiana Aerospace University vs. Commission on Higher Education, 356 SCRA 367, 384 (2001) — Cited for the rule that a writ of certiorari is not intended to correct every controversial interlocutory ruling.

• Section 11, Rule 32, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Upon expiration of the period of ten days, the report shall be set for hearing, after which the court shall issue an order adopting, modifying, or rejecting the report in whole or in part, or recommitting it with instructions, or requiring the parties to present further evidence before the commissioner or the court. Applied to hold that the RTC was not bound by the commissioners' report and could reject it.
• Section 7, Rule 3, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties: parties in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either as plaintiffs or defendants. Applied to hold that the adjoining owners were not shown to be indispensable parties.
• Section 8, Rule 3, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action. Applied to hold that petitioner failed to show the adjoining owners ought to be joined.
• Section 9, Rule 3, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Whenever a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state why he is omitted; the court may order inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained. Applied to hold that petitioner did not identify the alleged affected owners and that the RTC could not order a blanket inclusion.

Justices Quisumbing and Callejo, Sr., concurred.