Instance now Regional Trial Court a petition for review within one year after

Instance now regional trial court a petition for

This preview shows page 94 - 96 out of 122 pages.

Instance (now Regional Trial Court) a petition for review within one year after entry of the decree , provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired an interest. Upon the expiration of said term of one year, every decree or certificate of title issued in accordance with this section shall be incontrovertible . x x x.” 724 724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED East Asia Traders, Inc. vs. Republic the judge cannot act with grave abuse of discretion, or that no injustice results thereby. 7 In Indiana Aerospace University vs. Commission on Higher Education , 8 we held: “An order denying a motion to dismiss is interlocutory, and so the proper remedy in such a case is to appeal after a decision has been rendered. A writ of certiorari is not intended to correct every controversial interlocutory ruling; it is resorted only to correct a grave abuse of discretion or a whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Its function is limited to keeping an inferior court within its jurisdiction and to relieve persons from arbitrary acts—acts which courts or judges have no power or authority in law to perform. It is not designed to correct erroneous findings and conclusions made by the courts.” Assuming that certiorari is the proper remedy, we find no grave abuse of discretion committed by the RTC in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss. In the same vein, the Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the assailed RTC Order denying the motion to dismiss reproduced below: “After a careful examination of the records of this case, as well as the contentions of both parties, the court finds no merit to the instant motion to dismiss. It should be noted that the Civil Case No. T-1061 pending before the RTC of Tanauan, Batangas was not initiated by the Office of the Solicitor General and therefore, the same is not an action brought by the plaintiff, Republic of the Philippines. The inclusion of the Republic of the Philippines as an unwilling co-plaintiff did not make the Republic of the Philippines a party in said civil case. Further, it is a rule in our jurisdiction that prescription does not lie against the State for the reversion to the public domain of the lands, which have been fraudulently granted to private individuals. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the certificates of title on the property subject matter of the complaint having been procured through fraud and misrepresentation are null and void and should there- _______________ 7 Bangko Silangan Development Bank vs. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 110480, June 29, 2001, 360 SCRA 322. 8 G.R. No. 139371, April 4, 2001, 356 SCRA 367, citing Carandang vs. Cabatuando , 53 SCRA 383, 390 (1973); Philippine Rabbit vs. Galanan , 118 SCRA 664, 667, (1982); and De Vera vs. Pineda , 213 SCRA 434, 442 (1992).
Image of page 94
725 VOL. 433, JULY 7, 2004 725 East Asia Traders, Inc. vs. Republic fore be cancelled, clearly states plaintiff’s cause of action against defendants.
Image of page 95
Image of page 96

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 122 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • Real property law, Torrens Title, Reconveyance

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture