TOPICS:  Petition for Review under Rule 45

HEIRS OF TEODORA LOYOLA, represented herein by ZOSIMO L. MENDOZA,

G.R. No. 188658 January 11, 2017

FACTS:

On May 19, 2003, the Heirs of Teodora Loyola (Heirs), represented by Zosimo
Mendoza, Sr. (Zosimo), filed a Complaint for annulment of free patent and original certificate of
title, reconveyance of ownership and possession, and damages against respondent Alicia
Loyola (Alicia). 

The Heirs claimed that the property belonged to the parents of their mother, Teodora
Loyola (Teodora), who had been in possession of the property since time immemorial.  Teodora
inherited the property from her parents upon their demise. In tum, when Teodora died in 1939,
the Heirs inherited it from her. The Heirs insisted that they since maintained open, continuous,
exclusive, and notorious possession until the present. However, Alicia was allegedly able to
obtain Free Patent No. (III-14) 001627 and Original Certificate of Title No. 1784 over the
property through fraud and misrepresentation. Alicia was the wife of their deceased cousin
Gabriel Loyola (Gabriel), who was given permission to use part of Teodora's property. 

In her Answer, Alicia denied the allegations of fraud and illegality on the registration of
the free patent and issuance of the original certificate of title. She countered that the Complaint
was barred by laches and prescription as the free patent was registered as early as December
1985.

The Regional Trial Court did not rule on the merits Instead, it dismissed the case without
prejudice for failure to implead an indispensable party.  The trial court found that the successors
of one of the heirs, Guillermo Mendoza (Zosimo's deceased brother), were not impleaded as
party-plaintiffs

The Heirs moved for reconsideration, but ihe Motion was denied in the Order dated
October 30, 2006. The Heirs then filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals questioning the
dismissal. In its Decision dated December 22, 2008, the Court of Appeals upheld the Regional
Trial Court's dismissal of the case. The Court of Appeals found that the Regional Trial Court
erred in finding that there was a failure to implead an indispensable party as the heirs of
Guillermo Mendoza were not indispensable parties and judgment could be rendered without
impleading them as party-plaintiffs.

The Heirs moved for reconsideration, but the Motion was denied in the Court of Appeals
Resolution dated May 20, 2009.

On July 24, 2009, the Heirs of Teodora Loyola filed this Petition for Certiorari. 
 Petitioners claim that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in going beyond the issues raised on appeal. They
claim that the Court of Appeals touched on the factual findings of the Regional Trial Court
although these were not even contested by respondent. They insist that their appeal focused
only on the procedural aspect of jurisdiction over indispensable parties. Thus, the Court of
Appeals should have ruled on this matter alone. Petitioners assert that in any case, they have
convincingly proven their claim and allegations as to their rights over the land and that the
patent issued to respondent is null and void

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion when it went beyond
the issue of dismissal and ruled on the sufficiency of petitioners' evidence before the Regional
Trial Court.

RULING:
NO. The Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in - dismissing
petitioners' Complaint. It had jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter of the case, and
there is no showing that it whimsically or capriciously exercised this jurisdiction. At most, it may
have committed an error of procedure, as petitioners question its ruling on the merits of the case
and not just on the issue of dismissal for failure to implead indispensable parties.

Petitioners availed themselves of the wrong remedy. They should have filed a petition for
review under Rule 45 instead of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

In Microsoft Corp. v. Best Deal Computer Center Corp.:

A special civil action for certiorari will prosper only if grave abuse of discretion is

Petitioner asserts that respondent trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying its
application for the issuance of an ex parte order. However, other than this bare allegation,
petitioner failed to point out specific instances where grave abuse of discretion was allegedly
committed ....

Significantly, even assuming that the orders were erroneous, such error would merely be
deemed as an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari. As long as the
respondent acted with jurisdiction, any error committed by him or it in the exercise thereof will
amount to nothing more than an error of judgment which may be reviewed or corrected only by
appeal. The distinction is clear: A petition for certiorari seeks to correct of jurisdiction while a
petition for review seeks to correct errors of judgment committed by the court. Errors of
judgment include errors of procedure or mistakes in the court's findings. Where a court has
jurisdiction over the person and subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the
case is an exercise of that jurisdiction. Consequently, all errors committed in the exercise of
such jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment. Certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy designed
for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.

As petitioners fail to avail themselves of the proper remedy, the Petition ought to be
dismissed. Nonetheless, so as not to further delay the disposition of this case, this Comi
resolves the issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling on the merits of the case and
not just on the issue of dismissal for failure to implead indispensable parties.

As a general rule, only matters assigned as errors in the appeal may be resolved. Rule
51, Section 8 of the Rules of Court provides:

SECTION 8. Questions that May Be Decided - No error which does not affect the jurisdiction
over the subject matter or the validity of the judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein
will be considered unless stated in the assignment of errors, or closely related to or dependent
on an assigned error and properly argued in the brief, save as the court may pass upon plain
errors and clerical errors.

This provision likewise states that the Court of Appeals may review errors that are not
assigned but are closely related to or dependent on an assigned error. The Court of Appeals is
allowed discretion if it "finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a complete and
just resolution of the case.

We have ruled in a number of cases that the appellate court is accorded a broad
discretionary power to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors and to consider errors not
assigned. It is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if they are not assigned as
errors in the appeal. Inasmuch as the Court of Appeals may consider grounds other than those
touched upon in the decision of the trial court and uphold the same on the basis of such other
grounds, the Court of Appeals may, with no less authority, reverse the decision of the trial court
on the basis of grounds other than those raised as errors on appeal. We have applied this rule,
as a matter of exception, in the following instances:

(1) Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter;

(2) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within
contemplation of law;

(3) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving
at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interest of justice or to
avoid dispensing piecemeal justice;

(4) Matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are
matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise
or which the lower court ignored;

(5) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned; and
(6) Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question
properly assigned, is dependent.

Thus, the Court of Appeals has the discretion to consider the issue and address the
matter where its filing is necessary (a) to arrive at a just and complete resolution of the case; (b)
to serve the interest of justice; or (c) to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice. This is consistent
with its authority to review the totality of the controversy brought on appeal.

Petitioners' appeal primarily focused on the Regional Trial Court's dismissal of the
Complaint for failure to implead an indispensable party. Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals
correctly ruled on whether petitioners were able to prove their claim. It had the discretion to
properly consider this separate issue in order to arrive at a complete resolution of the case.

Ordinarily, this case should have been remanded to the Regional Trial Court to make the
proper factual determination. However, due to judicial economy, or "the goal to have cases
prosecuted with the least cost to the parties," the Court of Appeals correctly reviewed the case
in its entire context.

It is incorrect for petitioners to argue that the factual findings of the Regional Trial Court
are binding when, in fact, these do not exist. In any case, the Court of Appeals has the authority
to reverse the factual findings of the Regional Trial Court if these are not in accord with
evidence. In Gonzales v. Court of Appeals:

The right of the Court of Appeals to review, alter and reverse the findings of the trial
court where the appellate court, in reviewing the evidence has found that facts and
circumstances of weight and influence have been ignored and overlooked and the significance
of which have been misinterpreted by the trial court, cannot be disputed.