Vios vs. Pantangco, Jr.

The proper remedy from an RTC decision rendered in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an ordinary appeal to the Court of Appeals, not a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47; and a certiorari court may not review the intrinsic correctness of a lower court's judgment on the merits, as certiorari is confined to errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment.

The dispute centers on a residential lot in Barangay Pasong Tamo, Quezon City, registered under TCT No. 76956. Manuel Pantangco, Jr. claimed co-ownership by purchase from the former owner and sought to eject Charlie Vios and the Spouses Rogelio and Teresita Antonio from the premises. The petitioners contested Pantangco's title, asserting that the property forms part of unclassified public forest and that Pantangco's title originated from a nullified certificate of title. The case traversed three judicial levels — the Metropolitan Trial Court, the Regional Trial Court, and the Court of Appeals — raising procedural questions about the proper remedies available from decisions rendered in certiorari proceedings and the jurisdictional limits of certiorari review.

Manuel Pantangco, Jr. filed a complaint for ejectment and damages against Charlie Vios and the Spouses Rogelio and Teresita Antonio before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Branch 32, Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. 37-8529. Pantangco alleged that he was a co-owner by purchase of a residential land on Sampaguita Street, Barangay Pasong Tamo, Quezon City, registered under TCT No. 76956. He claimed that prior to purchase, he inquired whether the petitioners were interested in buying the property; when they declined, he told them he would give them one week from his purchase to vacate, and they allegedly agreed. After the sale was consummated, the petitioners refused to vacate, prompting Pantangco to file the complaint when no settlement was reached before the Pangkat Tagapagkasundo.

The petitioners denied the material allegations and raised special and affirmative defenses. They asserted that the disputed property belongs to the government as part of unclassified public forest, that the real previous owner was Alfredo Aquino from whom they acquired their rights through a "Waiver," that Pantangco's title is fake as it originated from Original Certificate of Title No. 614 which was nullified in Civil Case No. 36752 by Judge Reynaldo V. Roura of the RTC, Branch 83, Quezon City, and that assuming Pantangco's title to be valid, the property it covers is different from the premises they occupy. Petitioner Vios was represented by Atty. Oscar D. Sollano, while the Spouses Antonio were represented by Atty. Manuel C. Genova.

After appropriate proceedings, the MTC rendered a decision on July 12, 1996 in Pantangco's favor, ordering the petitioners to immediately vacate the premises, remove all structures and shanties thereon, and pay reasonable compensation for use and occupancy from February 1, 1994 until actual vacation. Notices and copies of the decision were transmitted to the petitioners through their counsel of record. Atty. Genova received his copy on July 18, 1996, while Atty. Sollano received his on July 23, 1996. On August 5, 1996, the Mauricio Law Office, through Atty. Melanio Mauricio, Jr., filed a Notice of Appearance with Urgent Motion stating that petitioner Vios received an incomplete copy of the decision from his former counsel Atty. Sollano, and requested that the MTC furnish Vios with a complete copy. Two days later, on August 12, 1996, Pantangco moved for the issuance of a writ of execution, arguing that the decision was already final and executory as no notice of appeal had been filed within the reglementary period. The MTC granted the motion on August 30, 1996, and the corresponding writ was issued.

On September 9, 1996, petitioner Vios moved to quash the writ, asserting it was null and void because the MTC decision had not become final and executory, as he had not been notified of the decision; Atty. Sollano, to whom a copy was sent, had allegedly withdrawn as his counsel sometime in November 1995. The Sheriff nonetheless issued a Notice to Vacate and Demolish on September 11, 1996. Vios moved to quash the writ of execution and demolition, which Pantangco opposed. The MTC denied the motion to quash on September 23, 1996, and the Sheriff implemented the writ by turning over possession of the disputed property to Pantangco.

On November 13, 1996, petitioner Vios filed with the RTC, Branch 224, Quezon City, a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, assailing both the MTC decision and the writ of execution. Vios attacked the MTC decision for being contrary to the evidence and challenged the writ of execution on the ground that the decision was not yet final because Atty. Sollano had previously withdrawn as his counsel. The RTC rendered a decision on August 4, 1997 in Vios' favor, annulling the MTC decision for being contrary to the evidence and annulling the writ of execution on the reasoning that the decision was not yet final and executory due to lack of notice. The RTC also ordered restoration of possession to the petitioners, directed Pantangco to exercise his options under Article 448 of the Civil Code regarding the houses built on the property, and fixed rent at ₱3,500 per month should the value of the land exceed the value of the buildings. After the RTC denied Pantangco's motion for reconsideration on December 2, 1997, execution was eventually implemented in Vios' favor through an alias writ.

Pantangco then filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the RTC Decision, asserting that the RTC decision was void because the MTC decision could not be assailed on certiorari — the proper remedy being an ordinary appeal — and that certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. Pantangco further argued that the RTC exceeded its jurisdiction by applying Article 448 without hearing the parties on the issue of possession in good faith. The CA, in its assailed decision of October 10, 2003, found that the MTC had been precipitate in issuing the writ of execution because Vios' motion for a complete copy of the decision had been filed before the decision became final, depriving Vios of due process. However, the CA held that the RTC went beyond its certiorari jurisdiction by ruling on the insufficiency of evidence and by determining the parties' rights under Article 448 of the Civil Code. The CA declared the RTC decision null and void except insofar as it nullified the writ of execution. The CA denied Vios' motion for reconsideration on April 2, 2004.

• Proper Remedy from RTC Decision: Petitioners argued that the petition for certiorari filed by Vios with the RTC was an original action, and the proper remedy to question the RTC's resulting decision was an ordinary appeal to the CA; the CA thus erred in entertaining Pantangco's Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the RTC Decision under Rule 47.
• Finality of RTC Decision: Petitioners maintained that the RTC decision, not having been appealed by Pantangco, became final and constituted the law of the case, which may no longer be disturbed regardless of whether it was right or wrong.

• Nullity of RTC Decision: Respondent argued that the RTC decision was void because the MTC decision cannot be assailed on certiorari; the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal from the MTC decision, and the remedy of appeal was lost when the period expired fifteen days from receipt by petitioner's counsel of record of a copy of the MTC decision.
• Certiorari Not a Substitute for Appeal: Respondent contended that certiorari is not a substitute for the remedy of appeal already lost, and that the RTC therefore had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the certiorari petition, rendering its decision null and void.
• Excess of Jurisdiction: Respondent argued that the RTC exceeded its jurisdiction when it applied Article 448 of the Civil Code without hearing the parties on the issue of possession in good faith, and that a petition for certiorari properly covers only grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction — nothing more and nothing less.

• Proper Remedy from RTC Certiorari Decision: Whether the proper remedy from the RTC's decision in a petition for certiorari is an ordinary appeal to the CA, rather than a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47.
• Finality and Validity of RTC Decision: Whether the RTC decision, not having been appealed, became final and binding as the law of the case, or whether it is partly void for lack of jurisdiction.

• Proper Remedy from RTC Certiorari Decision: Yes. The proper remedy from an RTC decision in a certiorari case is an ordinary appeal to the CA under Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court; the CA erred in entertaining Pantangco's Rule 47 petition, as the availability of appeal forecloses resort to annulment of judgment.
• Finality and Validity of RTC Decision: No. The RTC decision is partly void for lack of jurisdiction, as the RTC exceeded its certiorari jurisdiction by reviewing the MTC decision on the merits and applying Article 448 of the Civil Code; only its dispositions on the lack of finality of the MTC decision and the invalidity of the writ of execution are valid.

• Proper Remedy from RTC Certiorari Decision: A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original action whose resulting decision is a final order that completely disposes of the petition. Under Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the proper remedy from such a decision is an ordinary appeal to the CA. Pantangco did not appeal; instead, he filed a "Petition for Declaration of Nullity of the RTC Decision" under Rule 47. Rule 47 applies only when ordinary remedies — including appeal — are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. Since Pantangco lost the remedy of appeal through his own inaction, Rule 47 was unavailable. The CA therefore erred from the very beginning in taking cognizance of the petition. The Court relied on Magestrado vs. People of the Philippines, which held that where an RTC order dismissing a certiorari petition is a final order, the correct recourse is an ordinary appeal, not another petition for certiorari. The Court also cited Ramirez-Jongco vs. Veloso III for the principle that annulment of judgment may be resorted to only where ordinary remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner.

• Finality and Validity of RTC Decision: Petitioners invoked the law of the case doctrine, but this doctrine applies only when an appellate court has made a ruling on appeal and remanded the case to the lower court; no such prior appellate ruling or remand exists here. Petitioners may have been invoking the doctrine of finality (immutability) of judgment, but a void judgment cannot benefit from this doctrine. Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. When a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of that jurisdiction; otherwise, every erroneous judgment would be void. The RTC, apart from nullifying the writ of execution — which was within its certiorari jurisdiction — also reversed the MTC decision on the merits for being contrary to the evidence and applied Article 448 of the Civil Code, an issue the MTC never tackled. This kind of review is legally improper and outside the RTC's certiorari jurisdiction. The RTC decision is therefore partly void insofar as it modified and reversed the MTC decision on the merits and determined the parties' rights under Article 448. All RTC actions anchored on its decision on the merits are void for want of legal basis. Only the RTC dispositions on matters within its jurisdiction — the lack of finality of the MTC decision and the invalidity of the writ of execution — are valid and binding.

• Law of the Case Doctrine — Applies when an appellate court has made a ruling on a question on appeal and thereafter remands the case to the lower court for further proceedings; the question settled by the appellate court becomes the law of the case at the lower court and in any subsequent appeal, whether correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which the ruling was predicated continue to be the facts of the case. The Court found this doctrine inapplicable because no opinion had been made in a former appeal and there was no remanded case to which a previous ruling could apply.

• Doctrine of Finality (Immutability) of Judgment — Once a judgment has become final and executory, it may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted by the rendering court or the highest court of the land. The doctrine is grounded on public policy and sound practice requiring that litigations come to an end. The Court noted that this doctrine cannot apply to an intrinsically void judgment.

• Certiorari Limited to Errors of Jurisdiction — Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. An error committed by a court while exercising its jurisdiction does not deprive it of that jurisdiction; otherwise, every erroneous judgment would be void and the administration of justice would not survive. Where the error is one of law or fact — a mistake of judgment — appeal is the proper remedy. The supervisory jurisdiction of a court over certiorari cannot be exercised to review the intrinsic correctness of a lower court's judgment on the basis of law, facts, wisdom, or legal soundness of the decision.

• Annulment of Judgment (Rule 47) — Availability — Rule 47 governs annulment by the CA of judgments or final orders of RTCs in civil actions for which the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. When the loss of appeal is attributable to the petitioner's own negligence, Rule 47 cannot be invoked.

• "Certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. When a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being exercised when the error was committed." — This passage articulates the fundamental distinction between errors of jurisdiction and errors of judgment that defines the scope of certiorari, establishing why the RTC exceeded its authority by reviewing the MTC decision on the merits.

• "The remedy of annulment of judgment can […] be resorted to only where ordinary and other appropriate remedies, including appeal, are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner." — Quoted from Ramirez-Jongco vs. Veloso III, this defines the strict availability of Rule 47 annulment of judgment and explains why Pantangco's petition was fatally defective.

• "The RTC decision is partly void insofar as it modified and reversed the MTC decision on the merits. In this light, the RTC decision cannot be fully considered a final and controlling ruling that must govern the parties." — This establishes the partial nullity doctrine applied to the RTC decision, limiting its valid effects to matters within certiorari jurisdiction while voiding its excursions into the merits.

• Magestrado vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 148072, July 10, 2007 — Controlling precedent on the proper remedy from an RTC decision in a certiorari case; held that ordinary appeal to the CA under Section 2, Rule 41 is the correct remedy, not another petition for certiorari, because the RTC's dismissal of a certiorari petition is a final order that completely disposes of the case.
• Ramirez-Jongco vs. Veloso III, G.R. No. 149839, August 29, 2002 — Followed for the principle that annulment of judgment under Rule 47 is available only when ordinary remedies, including appeal, are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner; the loss of remedies attributable to the petitioner's own negligence bars resort to Rule 47.
• Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., Sales Force Union-PTGWO-BALAIS vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers, Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 155651, July 28, 2005 — Cited for the doctrine of finality and immutability of judgment, grounding the principle that final judgments may no longer be modified even to correct errors.
• People vs. Laguio, G.R. No. 128587, March 16, 2007 — Cited for the principle that certiorari is confined to errors of jurisdiction and that errors of law or fact are correctable through appeal, not certiorari.

• Section 2, Rule 41, Rules of Court — Provides that an ordinary appeal to the CA lies from judgments or final orders of the RTC rendered in the exercise of original jurisdiction, including decisions on certiorari petitions, by filing a notice of appeal with the rendering court. Applied to establish that Pantangco's proper remedy was an ordinary appeal, not a Rule 47 annulment petition.
• Rule 47, Section 1, Rules of Court — Governs annulment by the CA of judgments or final orders of RTCs in civil actions for which ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief, or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. Applied to show that Pantangco's Rule 47 petition was fatally defective because appeal was available but lost through his own inaction.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for certiorari, limited to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Applied to delineate the jurisdictional boundaries of the RTC's certiorari review, which does not extend to reviewing the merits of the MTC decision.
• Article 448, Civil Code — Governs the rights of parties regarding buildings built in good faith on land owned by another. The RTC improperly applied this provision in a certiorari proceeding, as the MTC never tackled the issue; the application was declared void for lack of jurisdiction.

Leonardo A. Quisumbing (Chairperson), Conchita Carpio Morales, Dante O. Tinga, and Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. concurred in the decision. No separate concurring opinions were written.