G.R. No. 7557 - People vs Serapio

The property in dispute is Lot No. 1211 located in Babag, Lapu‑Lapu City, Cebu, with an area of 19,156 square meters.
Competing accounts regarding the chain of title emerged:

Veronica L. Tumampos claimed that she acquired the subject property from the heirs of Teodoro Berdon (the previous tax declarant and survey claimant) through a Confirmation of Waiver and Quitclaim dated January 28, 2013.
Tumampos further asserted that she promptly declared the property for taxation purposes, took possession, and introduced significant improvements.
Conversely, Concepcion P. Ang’s narrative stated that:

In 1947, the property was first registered for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration No. 02267 in the name of Julio Berdan.
In 1978, Tomasa Pongasi acquired and registered the property under Tax Declaration No. 01338.
Bonifacio Domosmog subsequently took over the property, and after his death, his heirs purportedly sold it to Ang via a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 5, 1994.

In 1995, Ang filed an application for judicial titling over the subject land pending before Branch 53 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Lapu‑Lapu City.

In June 2012, Tumampos filed a free patent application before the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Region VII (DENR‑VII), docketed as FPA No. 072226‑27‑F.
Upon learning of Tumampos’ free patent application, Ang filed a formal protest asserting that:

Ruling of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Region VII (DENR‑VII)

Granted due course to Tumampos’ free patent application.
Dismissed Ang’s protest based on its certification from the Land Registration Authority (LRA) that the land was declared public land in Cadastral Case No. 17, Cadastral Record No. 946.

That the subject property remained part of the public domain.
That Tumampos’ immediate possession and subsequent improvements on the property demonstrated her preferential right.
Discrepancies existed in the tax declarations presented by Ang’s predecessors (with indications of handwritten and superimposed entries), casting doubt on the accurate identification of the land.
There was no substantiation regarding how Julio originally acquired the property.

Ang, after the denial of her motion for reconsideration and without filing an appeal with the DENR Secretary, elevated the matter by filing a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA, on January 31, 2017, granted the Petition for Certiorari:

Relying on the fact that Ang had already filed a judicial titling case over the property prior to Tumampos’ free patent application.
Expressing concerns that the DENR‑VII might have erred by accepting the free patent application despite the pending judicial proceeding.
Noting the potential conflict between the DENR‑VII decision and the ruling that might result from the RTC’s pending judicial titling case.

On September 11, 2017, the CA denied Tumampos’ Motion for Reconsideration, which led her to file the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari raising further issues.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in giving due course to the Petition for Certiorari filed by Ang despite the availability of an appeal remedy.
Whether the rule on appeal from the decision of the DENR‑VII can be dispensed with so as to allow filing a petition for certiorari in lieu of a proper appeal.
Whether the DENR‑VII had jurisdiction over the free patent application notwithstanding the pendency of Ang’s judicial titling case, and if not, whether such error amounts to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.