Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Fernando, Pampanga vs. Soriano, Jr.

A trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss is an error of judgment correctable on appeal, not a proper subject of certiorari, absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion; furthermore, the requirement of legal or equitable title under Article 477 of the Civil Code is a requisite for an action to quiet title to prosper, not a condition precedent to filing, and an action seeking the declaration of nullity of a title constitutes a direct attack.

Roman Catholic Archbishop (RCA) of San Fernando, Pampanga, claiming ownership over a tract of land covered by OCT No. 17629, filed an ejectment case against several individuals who unlawfully occupied the property. The defendants claimed RCA's title was spurious and that they acquired the land by acquisitive prescription. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) ruled in favor of RCA, ordering the defendants to vacate and pay rentals. The defendants' appeal was dismissed, and their subsequent petition for certiorari was not given due course, rendering the MCTC decision final and executory. Meanwhile, some defendants filed a separate action for quieting of title and declaration of nullity of title against RCA. RCA moved to dismiss this action, which the Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied, prompting RCA to elevate the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) via certiorari.

• Ejectment Case: RCA filed an ejectment suit against occupants of its land covered by OCT No. 17629. Defendants countered that RCA's title was spurious and that they acquired the property through acquisitive prescription, having possessed it for over 30 years. The MCTC ruled in favor of RCA, holding that OCT No. 17629 remains valid until declared void by a competent court. The decision became final after the defendants' appeal was dismissed and their certiorari petition was denied.
• Quieting of Title Case: While the ejectment case was pending, some defendants filed a separate action for Quieting of Title and Declaration of Nullity of Title in the RTC, claiming actual possession in the concept of owners and alleging that OCT No. 17629 is fake due to apparent erasures, a false memorandum of encumbrance indicating reconstitution, and lack of a court order for reconstitution.
• Motion to Dismiss: RCA moved to dismiss the RTC case on grounds of noncompliance with a condition precedent, laches, and collateral attack on its title. The RTC denied the motion, ruling that the condition precedent did not apply, plaintiffs had a cause of action, and the prescription argument was a matter of evidence. The CA affirmed the RTC's denial, holding that Art. 477 is not a condition precedent and laches requires evidentiary determination.
• Execution and Injunction: The MCTC granted RCA's motion for execution and issued a writ. Sheriff sent a Notice to Vacate. Guinto filed a Petition for Injunction in the Supreme Court to halt the execution, arguing it would cause grave and irreparable damage.

• Condition Precedent: RCA argued that the defendants failed to comply with the condition precedent under Article 477 of the Civil Code because they lacked legal or equitable title to or interest in the property.
• Misjoinder of Actions: RCA contended that the joinder of an action for quieting of title (a special civil action) and an action for declaration of nullity of title (governed by ordinary rules) violated Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court.
• Collateral Attack: RCA asserted that the quieting of title action constituted a prohibited collateral attack on its title.
• Injunction: Guinto maintained that the writ of execution should be enjoined to prevent grave and irreparable damage to the occupants, whereas RCA would suffer no damage if its title were later proven genuine.

• Requisite for Action to Prosper: Defendants countered that Article 477 of the Civil Code is not a condition precedent to filing, but a requisite for the action to prosper, to be determined after trial.
• Direct Attack: Defendants argued that the action for declaration of nullity of title constituted a direct, not collateral, attack on RCA's title because it explicitly sought to nullify OCT No. 17629 based on allegations that it was fake and spurious.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the CA erred in not holding that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying RCA's motion to dismiss the quieting of title case.
• Condition Precedent: Whether the requirement of legal or equitable title under Article 477 of the Civil Code constitutes a condition precedent to filing an action for quieting of title.
• Misjoinder: Whether the joinder of actions for quieting of title and declaration of nullity of title warrants dismissal under Section 5, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court.
• Collateral Attack: Whether the action for quieting of title and declaration of nullity of title constitutes a prohibited collateral attack on RCA's title.
• Injunction: Whether the enforcement of the final ejectment judgment should be enjoined pending the resolution of the quieting of title case.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The CA committed no error in finding no grave abuse of discretion. The denial of a motion to dismiss is an error of judgment, correctable on appeal, not via certiorari. The RTC's determination that the requisite of legal title and the issue of laches are matters of evidence for trial was proper.
• Condition Precedent: Article 477 of the Civil Code is a requisite for an action to quiet title to prosper, not a condition precedent to filing. The existence or nonexistence of such title should be determined after a trial on the merits.
• Misjoinder: Misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action under Section 6, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court.
• Collateral Attack: The action constitutes a direct attack on the title. A direct attack aims to annul or set aside a judgment or title, whereas a collateral attack is made as an incident in an action seeking different relief. The complaint explicitly sought to nullify OCT No. 17629 based on allegations of it being fake.
• Injunction: Injunction was properly denied. An injunctive writ requires a clear legal right to be protected. The defendants' right to possess the property was declared inexistent in the final MCTC ejectment decision. The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of an actual existing right is not a ground for injunction.

• Denial of Motion to Dismiss via Certiorari — The trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a certiorari proceeding under Rule 65 because it is an error of judgment, not of jurisdiction. The exception applies only when there is a clear showing that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in an arbitrary or despotic manner.
• Condition Precedent vs. Requisite for Action to Prosper — The requirement of legal or equitable title under Article 477 of the Civil Code is not a condition precedent before one can file an action for quieting of title, but a requisite for the action to prosper, to be determined after a trial on the merits.
• Direct vs. Collateral Attack on Title — An attack on a title is direct when the objective is to annul or set aside the judgment or title, or enjoin its enforcement. It is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is made as an incident thereof. An action for declaration of nullity of title is a direct attack.
• Injunction Requires Clear Legal Right — To be entitled to an injunctive writ, the applicant must show a clear and unmistakable right to be protected. Where the applicant's right or title is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper. The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of an actual existing right is not a ground for injunction.

• "Well-entrenched in our jurisdiction is the rule that the trial court’s denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a certiorari proceeding under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. This is because a certiorari writ is a remedy designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment." — Defines the scope of certiorari and establishes that denial of a motion to dismiss is an error of judgment.
• "The requirement stated in Article 477 is not a condition precedent before one can file an action for quieting of title. Rather, it is a requisite for an action to quiet title to prosper and the existence or nonexistence of the requisite should be determined only after trial on the merits." — Clarifies the nature of the legal or equitable title requirement in quieting of title actions.
• "The attack is direct when the objective is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as an incident thereof." — Provides the standard for distinguishing direct from collateral attacks on a title.
• "Where the applicant’s right or title is doubtful or disputed, injunction is not proper. The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of an actual existing right is not a ground for injunction." — States the necessity of a clear legal right for the issuance of an injunctive writ.

• Urethane Trading Specialist, Inc. v. Ong — Followed. Cited for the doctrine that the denial of a motion to dismiss is an error of judgment correctable on appeal, not a proper subject of certiorari.
• Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals — Followed. Cited for the distinction between a direct and collateral attack on a title.
• Ocampo v. Sison Vda. de Fernandez — Followed. Cited for the requisites for the issuance of a preliminary injunction, emphasizing the necessity of a clear legal right.
• Medina v. City Sheriff, Manila — Followed. Cited for the principle that a final ejectment judgment negates the right to possess.

• Article 477, Civil Code — Requires the plaintiff to have legal or equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action. Applied as a requisite for the action to prosper, not a condition precedent to filing.
• Section 5, Rule 2, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides that joinder of actions shall not include special civil actions governed by special rules. Cited by RCA but deemed irrelevant due to Section 6.
• Section 6, Rule 2, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides that misjoinder of causes of action is not a ground for dismissal of an action. Applied to reject RCA's argument that the joinder warranted dismissal.
• Section 21, Rule 70, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs immediate execution on appeal to the CA or SC. Cited as the basis for the MCTC's issuance of the writ of execution.
• Section 3, Rule 58, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Enumerates the grounds for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Applied to deny Guinto's petition, as no clear legal right was established.

Renato C. Corona, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo.