Heirs of Reterta vs. Mores

An action for quieting of title and reconveyance involving friar land already titled in a private person's name falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court or Municipal Trial Court under Section 19(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, not the Land Management Bureau, whose authority under Act No. 1120 is limited to administration and disposition and ceases once title has issued.

The petitioners are the heirs of Spouses Teofilo M. Reterta and Elisa Reterta, claiming succession to rights in Lot 2938 of the Sta. Cruz de Malabon Friar Lands Estate in Cavite. The respondents are the registered owners of the disputed portion under TCT No. T-64071 derived from a friar-land sale. Friar lands are governed by Act No. 1120, which entrusts their administration and disposition to the Director of Lands, now the Land Management Bureau, with conveyance procedures distinct from ordinary public land.

Teofilo M. Reterta, predecessor of petitioners Eduardo M. Reterta, Consuelo M. Reterta, and Avelina M. Reterta, claimed rights as grantee-occupant-cultivator of a 47,708-square-meter parcel in Trez Cruzes, Tanza, Cavite, part of Lot 2938 of the Sta. Cruz de Malabon Friar Lands Estate. According to petitioners, their father and his predecessors had been in open, exclusive, notorious, and continuous possession for more than 30 years, and Teofilo had partially paid the price, with petitioners remaining in possession and inheriting upon his death on July 11, 1983.

In 1999 petitioners allegedly discovered an affidavit dated March 1, 1966 purportedly executed by their father waiving his rights, interests, and participation in the land. By virtue of that affidavit, Sales Certificate No. V-769 was issued in favor of respondent Lorenzo Mores by the then Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-64071 was later issued to respondents Spouses Lorenzo Mores and Virginia Lopez. Petitioners asserted the affidavit was forged and procured by fraud, rendering the transfer and resulting title invalid.

On May 2, 2000, petitioners commenced Civil Case No. TM-983 in the Regional Trial Court in Trece Martires City for quieting of title and reconveyance, declaration of nullity of the affidavit and sales certificate, reconveyance, and damages. Respondents moved on August 1, 2000 to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the land being friar land, and for petitioners' lack of legal personality. The trial court found the subject matter to be review of the Land Management Bureau's grant to Lorenzo Mores through the questioned affidavit and certificate, deemed Act No. 1120 to vest exclusive administration, disposition, and fraud determination in the Director of Lands, and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without addressing legal personality.

• Non-appealability of denial of reconsideration: Petitioner argued that certiorari was the proper remedy because the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 37 and Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court prohibited appeal from an order denying a motion for reconsideration, while the third paragraph of Section 1, Rule 41 allowed a Rule 65 special civil action where the judgment or final order was not appealable.
• Inapplicability of Rosete: Petitioner maintained that the Court of Appeals reversibly erred in applying Rosete vs. Court of Appeals, 339 SCRA 193, notwithstanding effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on July 1, 1997.
• Jurisdiction and grave abuse: Petitioner argued that the trial judge gravely abused discretion in dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, the regular court having jurisdiction over the quieting-of-title and reconveyance action.

• Exclusive LMB jurisdiction over friar land: Respondent countered that the RTC had no jurisdiction over Civil Case No. TM-983 because the land was friar land, invoking Sections 12 and 18 of Act No. 1120 as vesting exclusive administration, disposition, and approval authority in the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands and Secretary of the Interior.
• Lack of legal personality: Respondent argued that petitioners had no legal personality to commence the action.

• Remedy against dismissal: Whether certiorari lies against the RTC order granting the motion to dismiss and the denial of reconsideration, or whether appeal was the exclusive proper remedy such that certiorari cannot substitute for lost appeal.
• Jurisdiction over friar-land reconveyance: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over a complaint for quieting of title and reconveyance involving titled friar land, or whether exclusive jurisdiction belongs to the Land Management Bureau under Act No. 1120.

• Remedy against dismissal: Technically no, appeal not certiorari was the proper remedy against the final dismissal order, the denial of reconsideration being assailable only via appeal from the final order itself.
• Jurisdiction over friar-land reconveyance: Yes. Jurisdiction over quieting of title and reconveyance of titled friar land belongs to the RTC or MTC under B.P. Blg. 129, the LMB's authority having ceased upon disposition and titling, making the dismissal grave abuse correctible by certiorari.

• Remedy against dismissal: The order granting the motion to dismiss completely disposed of the case, leaving nothing more for the trial court to do, and was thus a final order appealable in due course, unlike an interlocutory order such as a denial of a motion to dismiss. The order sought to be relieved from was the dismissal, not the denial of reconsideration; under Section 9, Rule 37, denial of reconsideration is not independently appealable, the remedy being appeal from the judgment or final order, since reconsideration merely re-presents the same issues, contentions, and evidence. Under the 1997 version of Section 1, Rule 41 then in force, an order denying reconsideration was expressly non-appealable, with Rule 65 available only where the judgment or final order itself was not appealable; the 2007 deletion of that item by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, though procedural and potentially retroactive, did not render the CA's contemporaneously correct application erroneous.
• Jurisdiction over friar-land reconveyance: Despite the general rule, certiorari was given due course under recognized exceptions where appeal is inadequate and broader justice requires, including capricious exercise of judgment, danger of failure of justice, purely legal issues, and need to prevent substantial wrong, the writ being discretionary and guided by ends of justice. The complaint stated a viable reconveyance claim: transfer of a friar-land certificate holder's rights requires a formal certificate of transfer approved and registered by the Bureau, the purchaser under Act No. 1120 being treated as owner even before full payment with the Government as mere lienholder, and under Section 16 the deceased holder's interest descends to heirs entitled to the deed if the respondents' deed is invalid, especially where petitioners alleged possession and partial payment. An action for reconveyance, requiring only a superior legal claim and absence of an innocent purchaser for value, respects indefeasibility while seeking transfer from the fraudulent registrant, and a friar-land title obtained without legal requirements may be nullified. Under Section 19(2) of B.P. Blg. 129 as amended by R.A. No. 7691, civil actions involving title to, possession of, or interest in real property exceeding ₱20,000.00 (₱50,000.00 in Metro Manila) belong to the RTC, otherwise to the MTC, as determined by complaint allegations and principal relief; Sections 12 and 18 of Act No. 1120 confer only administration and disposition authority requiring secretarial approval, not adjudication of reconveyance after titling. By ignoring the complaint's allegations and dismissing, the RTC acted whimsically and capriciously, constituting grave abuse of discretion — patent, gross evasion of duty or arbitrary exercise by passion or hostility — warranting annulment to avoid leaving petitioners bereft of remedy and suffering grave injustice.

• Final order vs. interlocutory order — A final judgment or order finally disposes of the case, leaving nothing more for the court to do except await the parties' next move and eventual execution, such as a dismissal on res judicata or prescription, and is appealable; an interlocutory order does not finally dispose and indicates further judicial action remains, such as denial of a motion to dismiss, and is not separately appealable except as part of appeal from the final judgment. Applied to characterize the grant of the motion to dismiss as a final, appealable order.
• Certiorari not a substitute for appeal; exceptions — A Rule 65 petition lies only where there is no appeal nor plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, and appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive; however, certiorari may issue despite availability of appeal where necessary to prevent irreparable injury, where judgment was capricious or whimsical, where failure of justice threatens, where appeal would be slow, inadequate, or insufficient, where the issue is purely legal, where public interest is involved, or in urgency, inadequacy rather than mere absence of remedy controlling. Applied to entertain certiorari to correct a void dismissal that would cause gross injustice.
• Action for reconveyance — Reconveyance respects the incontrovertibility of registration but seeks transfer to the rightful owner on ground of fraudulent or mistaken registration, requiring only assertion of a legal claim superior to the registered owner's and that the property has not passed to an innocent purchaser for value, with no other special ground needed. Applied to sustain the sufficiency of petitioners' claim despite respondents' existing certificate of title.
• Jurisdiction over title to real property; friar lands — Under Section 19(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended, the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over civil actions involving title to, possession of, or interest in real property where assessed value exceeds ₱20,000.00 (₱50,000.00 in Metro Manila), otherwise the MTC; jurisdiction is determined by complaint allegations and principal relief sought. Applied to hold that quieting of title and reconveyance of titled friar land belongs to regular courts, the Land Management Bureau's Act No. 1120 authority being limited to administration and disposition and ceasing after disposition and issuance of title.
• Grave abuse of discretion — Grave abuse connotes whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment equivalent to excess or lack of jurisdiction, so patent and gross as to amount to evasion of positive duty, virtual refusal to perform legal duty, or arbitrary and despotic action by reason of passion or hostility. Applied to annul the RTC dismissal that disregarded governing jurisdictional law and complaint allegations.
• Friar-land ownership and succession — Under Act No. 1120 jurisprudence, the purchaser of friar land is treated as actual owner even before full payment and execution of final deed, subject to paying the price with the Government as lienholder or mortgagee; transfer of a sale-certificate holder's rights requires a formal certificate of transfer approved and registered by the Bureau, no other mode being authorized; under Section 16, upon the holder's death before Government deed, interest descends to intestate successors entitled to the deed. Applied in Heirs of Spouses Teofilo M. Reterta and Elisa Reterta vs. Spouses Lorenzo Mores and Virginia Lopez to support petitioners' hereditary reconveyance theory.

• "The original and exclusive jurisdiction over a complaint for quieting of title and reconveyance involving friar land belongs to either the Regional Trial Court (RTC) or the Municipal Trial Court (MTC). Hence, the dismissal of such a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction due to the land in litis being friar land under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land Management Bureau (LMB) amounts to manifest grave abuse of discretion that can be corrected through certiorari." — States the core jurisdictional ratio and the consequence of erroneous dismissal, anchoring the allowance of certiorari.
• "A 'final' judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto, e.g., an adjudication on the merits which, on the basis of the evidence presented at the trial declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are and which party is in the right; or a judgment or order that dismisses an action on the ground, for instance, of res judicata or prescription." — Provides the canonical distinction used to classify the dismissal as final and therefore appealable.
• "In essence, an action for reconveyance respects the incontrovertibility of the decree of registration but seeks the transfer of the property to its rightful and legal owner on the ground of its having been fraudulently or mistakenly registered in another person's name." — Defines the nature of reconveyance and why respondents' existing title did not defeat the suit.
• "The term grave abuse of discretion connotes whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment as is equivalent to excess, or lack of jurisdiction." — Supplies the standard applied to annul the RTC's jurisdictional dismissal.

• Investments, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-60036, 27 January 1987, 147 SCRA 334 — Followed as controlling formulation of final versus interlocutory orders to hold the dismissal appealable.
• Francisco Motors Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 117622-23, October 23, 2006, 505 SCRA 8 — Followed for the exceptions allowing certiorari despite availability of appeal.
• Arayata vs. Joya, No. 28067, 51 Phil. 654 (1928) — Followed to require a formal certificate of transfer approved and registered for effective transfer of friar-land sale-certificate rights.
• Director of Lands vs. Rizal, No. L-292587, 87 Phil. 806 (1950) — Followed to treat the friar-land purchaser as actual owner before full payment, with Government as lienholder or mortgagee.
• Heirs of Valeriano S. Concha, Sr. vs. Lumocso, G.R. No. 158121, December 12, 2007, 540 SCRA 1 — Followed for the elements and sufficiency of an action for reconveyance despite an existing title.
• Heirs of Generoso Sebe vs. Heirs of Veronico Sevilla, G.R. No. 174497, October 12, 2009, 603 SCRA 395 — Followed that jurisdiction is determined by complaint allegations and principal relief sought.
• Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, 275 SCRA 423 — Cited by the CA for the rule that certiorari does not lie where appeal was available and lost.

• Section 19(2), Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691 — Vests exclusive original jurisdiction in RTCs over civil actions involving title to, possession of, or interest in real property exceeding the stated assessed values, otherwise in MTCs; applied to place the reconveyance suit in regular courts.
• Sections 12, 16 and 18, Act No. 1120 (Friar Lands Act) — Govern issuance of sale certificates, descent of a deceased holder's interest to intestate heirs entitled to the Government deed, and requirement of Secretarial approval for Bureau leases or sales; applied to reject LMB exclusive jurisdiction after titling and to support petitioners' succession claim.
• Section 1, Rule 65, Rules of Court — Allows certiorari only where there is no appeal nor plain, speedy, and adequate remedy against grave abuse of discretion; applied to frame the general bar and its exceptions.
• Section 9, Rule 37 and Section 1, Rule 41, Rules of Court (1997 version) — Provide that denial of new trial or reconsideration is not independently appealable, remedy being appeal from judgment or final order, and enumerate non-appealable orders with Rule 65 available only where final order itself is not appealable; applied to reject petitioners' theory that denial of reconsideration authorized certiorari.

Renato C. Corona, Chief Justice and Chairperson, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Mariano C. Del Castillo, and Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Associate Justices, concurred. No separate concurring opinions were issued.