G.R. No. 202661 - Ramirez vs. Elomina

In May 1994, petitioner Leticia C. Ramirez was issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-4884 pursuant to Free Patent No. 043404-94-1330 over Lot No. 922, Cad-455-D in Butong, Cabuyao, Laguna, measuring 1,087 square meters.
Felomino Elomina, represented through his attorney-in-fact Federico Elomina, challenged the issuance by alleging that the free patent was tainted by misrepresentations. He contended that the patent application had been transferred to Ramirez by Delfin Torinos, neither of whom ever occupied the subject land.

Felomino asserted that the subject property had long been possessed by his family – his father Felix Elomina had occupied the lot since time immemorial, and Felomino himself had continued in possession for over 70 years.
The family’s continuous adverse possession was supported by evidence, including testimony that revealed their long-standing residence on Lot No. 922, despite lacking formal title documents.

Following Felomino’s protest initiated by a letter-protest filed on July 11, 2000, the City Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) was directed to investigate the matter.
On December 29, 2003, the DENR, upon inspecting the property and noting that the Elomina family occupied it while there was no evidence of possession by Ramirez or Torinos, issued an order to cancel and revoke the free patent awarded to Ramirez. The Legal Division of the DENR was further directed to begin proceedings to cancel the OCT and revert the subject land to the public domain.

On December 12, 2005, Felomino filed a suit for reconveyance of title and damages before the RTC in BiAan, Laguna, alleging that Ramirez obtained the title through fraud and claiming his right over the property based on long and adverse possession.
In its March 13, 2008 Decision, the RTC dismissed Felomino’s complaint for lack of merit. The court held that:

Felomino failed to prove his title to the land.
Even if misrepresentations occurred, Felomino was not the real party in interest since no application for a patent was filed by him.
The action was barred by prescription as the filing occurred more than 10 years after the issuance of OCT No. P-4884.

Felomino’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC in its November 14, 2008 Order, reiterating the lack of merit and real party-in-interest issues.

On appeal, Felomino maintained that he was the rightful possessor and owner of the property, emphasizing the continuous and uninterrupted long possession by his family.
In its October 12, 2011 Decision, the CA reversed the RTC ruling. The appellate court noted:

The factual testimony establishing the Elomina family’s occupancy of the property for over 70 years.
The absence of any document evidencing Ramirez’s possession or rightful claim.
That though the land had become alienable public domain by grant, the fraud committed by Ramirez in obtaining the title negated her claim.
The inapplicability of the four-year prescriptive period for reconveyance where the rightful possessor continuously occupied the property.

The CA directed that the Register of Deeds cancel Ramirez’s OCT and issue a new Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in Felomino’s name.
Ramirez received a copy of the CA Decision on October 17, 2011 and subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration on November 3, 2011 due to procedural delays.

Ramirez’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied on December 21, 2011 by the CA for being filed beyond the reglementary period, as the 15-day period had effectively ended on November 2, 2011 (taking into account that November 1 was a holiday).
Consequently, on May 25, 2012, the CA issued a Resolution ordering the issuance of an Entry of Judgment in CA-G.R. CV No. 92374, based on the finality of its October 12, 2011 Decision.
Unwilling to accept the denied motion, Ramirez filed the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, challenging the CA’s denial of her motion and the subsequent issuance of the judgment.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by denying Ramirez’s Motion for Reconsideration on the basis of its late filing.

Analysis of the procedural deadline under Section 1, Rule 52 and Rule 36 of the Rules of Court for filing a Motion for Reconsideration.
Consideration of whether extenuating circumstances such as Ramirez’s age and forgetfulness justify the relaxation of the rule.

Whether the issuance of an Entry of Judgment by the CA, which followed the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration, was proper and within the ambit of the appellate court’s jurisdiction.

Determining if the resultant finality of the CA Decision was procedurally and legally proper.
Assessment of the appropriate form of recourse for Ramirez’s procedural misstep.

Whether the instant Petition for Certiorari is the proper remedy to correct an alleged error, considering that the issue raised is one of procedural technicality (error in judgment) rather than an error of jurisdiction.

Whether errors in the appreciation of evidence or interpretation of the law committed by the CA can be corrected through certiorari.
Whether the petitioner’s challenge falls within the scope of certiorari, which is designed to correct grave abuse of discretion or jurisdictional errors.