THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 117247, April 12, 1996 ]
MANUEL I. RAMIREZ, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND ESMERALDO PONCE, RESPONDENTS.
SEPARATE OPINION
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
I concur in the result.
I wish to add, however, that the Court of Appeals should not have given due course the private respondent’s special civil action for certiorari to annul and set aside the decree issued in favor of the petitioner, which was filed on 14 February 1994 with this Court but referred to the former.
The order of the trial court in LRC Case No. B-526 confirming the petitioner’s imperfect title to the land in question and ordering its registration in his favor was issued on 13 May 1991. Pursuant thereto, as the ponencia states, "a decree of registration was eventually issued, followed by an original certificate of title." Such being the case, the alternative judicial remedies available to the private respondent who, by the way, does not even appear to have filed an opposition to the application for registration, would be (a) a petition to reopen the case, which must be filed within (1) year from the entry of the decree (Section 32, The Property Registration Decree [P.ℒαwρhi৷D. No. 1529); (b) an ordinary action for reconveyance (NARCISO PENA, Registration of Land Titles and Deeds, 1994 Rev. ed., 132-133); or (c) an action for damages against the Assurance Fund (Section 32, in relation to Sections 93-97, Id.). A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is not the proper remedy, especially in this case where the private respondent was not even an oppositor, and even if he were his remedy would have been an ordinary appeal, which cannot be substituted by a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
