Edgar Nuque vs Fidel Aquino And Spouses Alejandro and Erlinda Babina,

G.R. No. 193058

Facts: Petitioner is the owner of three parcels of land denominated as Lot Nos. 6018, 6019 and
2625 which are all located in Gerona, Tarlac. He acquired these lots in a public auction sale. The
subject properties were originally owned by one Hospicia Cardona who was able to obtain titles
over the said properties as early as 1935. It is through Cardona's titles that petitioner derived his
ownership over the disputed lands after purchasing them in the auction sale. Respondent Aquino
was able to obtain title over Lot Nos. 6018 and 2625 by means of filing an application for free
patent. It appears, that when Aquino filed the said application, the subject lots were already
owned by Cardona. Nonetheless, Aquino, was able to sell the subject properties to the spouses
Alejandro and Erlinda Babina who also obtained title over the disputed lots. Thus, petitioner
filed with the RTC of Tarlac City a Complaint for cancellation of title with damages. The RTC
declared the title of Aquino as null and void and declared valid the title of the petitioner. The
case, which was appealed by respondent Alejandro Babina, eventually reached the Supreme
Court. However, a resolution was issued which resolved to consider the case closed and
terminated for failure of Alejandro to file his petition for review on certiorari. The Resolution
had become final and executory and respondent Spouses title was subsequently canceled
pursuant to an order issued by the RTC. Petitioner learned that respondent spouses were
occupying the subject properties and filed an ex-parte motion for Writ of Possession. The
respondent answered by filing a motion for reimbursement of expenses contending that they are
possessors in good faith and that they are entitled to be reimbursed for the improvements they
have introduced. The RTC issued an Order denying the motions of both petitioner and
respondent spouses. The RTC held that petitioner's complaint was an action for the cancellation
of titles and that there was no prayer for the recovery of possession of the disputed lots. The RTC
concluded that, since petitioner's motion for the issuance of a writ of possession is not a legal
consequence of his action for cancellation of title, the said motion can no longer be entertained
after the finality of the decision in the action for cancellation of title. Petitioner filed with the CA
a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which was subsequently
dismissed on the ground that the latter failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the
questioned RTC Order before filing his petition for certiorari.
Issue: Whether or not the CA committed a serious error in requiring a prior motion for
reconsideration before the filing of a subject petition for certiorari.

Ruling: The Court finds no error on the part of the CA in dismissing his petition on the ground
that he failed to move for the reconsideration of the assailed RTC Order prior to filing his
certiorari petition. Our jurisprudence is replete with cases that the filing of motion for
reconsideration is an indispensable condition to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari. It
is admitted that there are exceptions to the rule, to wit: (a) where the order is a patent nullity; (b)
where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon
by the lower court, (c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and
any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the
subject matter of the action is perishable; (d) a motion for reconsideration would be useless; (e)
where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where,
in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the
trial court is improbable; (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of
due process; (h) where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no
opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is
involved. However, an examination of the petition for certiorari filed with the CA would reveal
that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the case falls under any of the exceptions. It must be
emphasized that a writ of certiorari is a prerogative writ, never demandable as a matter of right,
never issued except in the exercise of judicial discretion. Hence, he who seeks a writ of
certiorari must apply for it only in the manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of
the law and the Rules. To dispense with the requirement of filing a motion for reconsideration,
petitioner must show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason for doing so.