Francisca Taar Et. Al. V Claudio Lawan Et. Al.

REMEDIAL LAW: CIVIL PROCEDURE
Francisca Taar et. al. v Claudio Lawan et. al.

G.R. No. 190922, October 11, 2017, THIRD DIVISION
(LEONEN, J.)
DOCTRINES:
a. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is an extraordinary
remedy. Its scope of review is narrow, limited only to errors of jurisdiction.
b. The rule on res judicata states that a final judgment or decree rendered on the
merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the
parties or their privies, in all other subsequent actions or suits and on all points
and matters determined in the first suit.
FACTS:
Narcisa Taar (Narcisa), Alipio Duenas (Alipio), Fortunata Duenas (Fortunata),
and Pantaleon Taar (Pantaleon) inherited two (2) vast tracts of land situated in Tarlac.
One (1) parcel of land was adjudicated exclusively in favor of Pantaleon while the other
parcel of land was given to Pantaleon, Narcisa, Alipio, and Fortunata. Narcisa sold her
share to Spouses Primitive T. Adaoag and Pilar Tandoc (the Adaoag Spouses) and to
Spouses Ignacio Gragasin and Genoveva Adaoag (the Gragasin Spouses).
Later, Pantaleon, Alipio, Fortunata, the Adaoag Spouses, and the Gragasin
Spouses executed an agreement to partition the second parcel of land. This agreement
was approved by the Court of First Instance of Tarlac.
Pantaleon, Alipio, and Fortunata were the predecessors-in-interest of
Francisca, Joaquina, Lucia, and Oscar L. Galo.
The private respondents, Claudio Lawan (Claudio), Marcelino M. Galo
(Marcelino), Artemio Abarquez (Artemio), Augusto B. Lawan (Augusto), and Adolfo L.
Galo filed a verified protest alleging that their predecessors-in-interest had been in
actual, physical, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land since
1948.
Private respondents filed their free patent applications before the Tarlac
Community Environment and Natural Resources Office. Their applications covered the
Property, which was also claimed by petitioners. Private respondents' applications
were approved. The corresponding free patents and certificates of title were then
issued in their favor.
Petitioners filed before the Secretary of the Department o:f Environment and
Natural Resources a Verified Petition to annul Director Sibbaluca's Order on the
ground of extrinsic fraud and to cancel private respondents' free patents and
certificates of title.
Secretary of Department of Environment and Natural Resources Angelo T.
Reyes (Secretary Reyes) adopted the findings of the investigating team and ordered the
cancellation of the free patents and the certificates of title issued in favor of private
respondents.
The Office of the President, through then Executive Secretary Eduardo R.

Ermita (Executive Secretary Ermita), reversed Secretary Reyes' Decision and reinstated
Director Sibbaluca's Order. The Office of the President held that Secretary Reyes erred
in reversing Director Sibbaluca's Order as it had already attained finality.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari outright for being an
inappropriate remedy. The Court of Appeals noted that an appeal could have been
taken from the Decision and the Resolution of the Office .of the President. Instead of
filing an original action for certiorari, they should have filed a petition for review under
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUES:
1. Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the petition for certiorari filed by
Francisca Taar, Joaquina Taar, Lucia Taar, and the Heirs of Oscar L. Galo?
2. Were respondents barred by the principle of res judicata from instituting free
patent applications over the Property claimed by petitioners?
RULING:
1. No. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is an

extraordinary remedy. Its scope of review is narrow, limited only to errors of
jurisdiction. Errors of judgment can only be reviewed through an appeal.
Errors of judgment may involve a court's appreciation of the facts and

conclusions of law drawn from such facts. If a court acts within its jurisdiction,
then "any alleged errors committed in the exercise of its discretion will amount
to nothing more than mere errors of judgment. On the other hand, errors of
jurisdiction are those where the act or acts complained of were done without
jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
In the present case, petitioners' allegation that the Office of the President,
through then Executive Secretary Ermita, gravely abused its discretion in
failing to appreciate the merits of the February 18, 1948 Decision of the Court
of First Instance involves an error of judgment, not of jurisdiction. Assuming
that the issue raised by petitioners pertains to an error of jurisdiction, there is
no showing that the Office of the President exercised its power in an arbitrary or
despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility.
Petitioners could have taken an appeal from the October 20, 2008 Decision and
March 26, 2009 Resolution of the Office of the President by filing a petition for
review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, which governs appeals from
judgments rendered by quasi-judicial agencies in the exercise of quasi-judicial
powers.
While it is true that courts may take cognizance of a petition

for certiorari despite the availability of appeal, petitioners failed to allege and
prove that appeal would be inadequate to promptly relieve them of the effects of
the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Office of the President. Well-settled
is the rule that a petition for certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for a lost
appeal especially if one's own negligence or error in one's choice of remedy
occasioned such loss or lapse.
2. No. Parties invoking the application of res judicata must establish the following
elements:
a. The judgment sought to bar the new action must be final;
b. The decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over
the subject matter and the parties;
c. The disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and
d. There must be as between the first and second action identity of parties,
subject matter, and causes of action.
In this case, only the first three (3) elements of res judicata are present.
The February 18, 1948 Decision of the Court of First Instance is a final
judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. However,
it does not bar private respondents from instituting their free patent
applications over the Property. There is no identity or substantial identity of
parties and identity of subject matter between the February 18, 1948 Decision
of the Court of First Instance and private respondents' free patent applications.
The February 18, 1948 Decision of the Court of First Instance involved an
agreement between petitioners' predecessors-in-interest, namely: Alipio Duenas,
Fortunata Duenas, Spouses Primitivo T. Adaoag and Pilar Tandoc, Spouses
Ignacio Gragasin and Genoveva Adaoag, Pantaleon Taar, Lucia Taar, Joaquina
Taar, Feliciano Taar, Paulino Taar, and Oscar Galo. Clearly, private
respondents were not parties to the agreement. Moreover, there is no clear
showing that private respondents or their predecessors-in-interest shared a
common interest with any of the parties to the agreement.
However, assuming that there is identity or substantial identity of parties, there

is no identity of subject matter between the February 18, 1948 Decision of the
Court of First Instance and private respondents' free patent applications.
Although both relate to the same Property, the February 18, 1948 Decision of
the Court of First Instance was simply an agreement partitioning the bigger
parcel of land, which embraced the smaller portion claimed by petitioners and
private respondents. On the other hand, private respondents' free patent
applications involved the establishment of their rights as the purported
occupants and cultivators of the Property. Evidently, there is no identity of
subject matter. The principle of res judicata does not apply.

Francisca Taar Et. Al. V Claudio Lawan Et. Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Francisca Taar Et. Al. V Claudio Lawan Et. Al.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Francisca Taar Et. Al. V Claudio Lawan Et. Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REMEDIAL LAW: CIVIL PROCEDURE

Francisca Taar et. al. v Claudio Lawan et. al.

The Office of the President, through then Executive Secretary Eduardo R.

1. No. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is an

Errors of judgment may involve a court's appreciation of the facts and

While it is true that courts may take cognizance of a petition

a. The judgment sought to bar the new action must be final;

c. The disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and

However, assuming that there is identity or substantial identity of parties, there

You might also like