FACTS:

On May 2, 2000, the petitioners commenced an action for

quieting of title and reconveyance in the RTC in Trece Martires City
averring that they were the true and real owners of the parcel of
land situated in Trez Cruzes, Tanza, Cavite, having inherited the
land from their father; that their late father had been the grantee
of the land by virtue of his occupation and cultivation; that their
late father and his predecessors in interest had been in open,
exclusive, notorious, and continuous possession of the land for
more than 30 years; that they had discovered in 1999 an affidavit
dated March 1, 1966 that their father had purportedly executed
whereby he had waived his rights, interests, and participation in
the land; that by virtue of the affidavit, Sales Certificate had been
issued in favor of respondent Lorenzo Mores by the then
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources; and that
Transfer Certificate of Title had later issued to the respondents.
On August 1, 2000, the respondents, as defendants, filed a
motion to dismiss, insisting that the RTC had no jurisdiction to
take cognizance of the case due to the land being friar land, and
that the petitioners had no legal personality to commence it.
The RTC granted the motion to dismiss because of the opinion
that it has not acquired jurisdiction over the case being the land
subject of the case is a friar land and not land of public domain
and therefore must be under the exclusive administration and
disposition of the Director of Lands.
The petitioners then timely filed a motion for reconsideration, but
the RTC denied their motion for reconsideration. Therefore, the
petitioners assailed the dismissal via petition for certiorari, but
the CA dismissed the same, contending that the basic requisite
for the special civil action of certiorari to lie is that there is no
appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. When the court rendered the assailed
decision, the remedy of the petitioners was to have appealed the
same to this Court. But petitioners did not. Petitioners filed for
motion for reconsideration but the CA denied it. Hence, this
appeal.
Issues:

1. Whether the CA erred in not finding that the trial judge

gravely abused its discretion when it dismissed the
complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
2. Whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari.
HELD:
1. Yes. The law governing jurisdiction is Section 19 (2) of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, which
provides:
Section 19. Jurisdiction in Civil Cases. Regional Trial Courts
shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction: xxx
xxx
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein, where
the assessed value of the property involved exceeds Twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or for civil actions in Metro Manila,
where such value exceeds Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00)
except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of
lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred
upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
xxx
Conformably with the provision, because an action for
reconveyance or to remove a cloud on ones title involves the title
to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein,
exclusive original jurisdiction over such action pertained to the
RTC, unless the assessed value of the property did not exceed
P20,000.00 (in which instance the MTC having territorial
jurisdiction
would
have
exclusive
original
jurisdiction).
Determinative of which regular court had jurisdiction would be the
allegations of the complaint (on the assessed value of the
property) and the principal relief thereby sought.
The respondents reliance on Section 12 and Section 18 of Act No.
1120 to sustain their position that the Bureau of Public Lands
(now LMB) instead had exclusive jurisdiction was without basis.
The provisions read:
Section 12. xxx the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands shall give
the said settler and occupant a certificate which shall set forth in
detail that the Government has agreed to sell to such settler and

occupant the amount of land so held by him, at the price so fixed,

payable as provided in this Act at the office of the Chief of Bureau
of Public Lands xxx and that upon the payment of the final
installment together with all accrued interest the Government will
convey to such settler and occupant the said land so held by him
by proper instrument of conveyance, which shall be issued and
become effective in the manner provided in section one hundred
and twenty-two of the Land Registration Act xxx.
Section 18. No lease or sale made by Chief of the Bureau of Public
Lands under the provisions of this Act shall be valid until approved
by the Secretary of the Interior.
As the provisions indicate, the authority of LMB under Act No.
1120, being limited to the administration and disposition of friar
lands, did not include the petitioners action for reconveyance.
LMB ceases to have jurisdiction once the friar land is disposed of
in favor of a private person and title duly issues in the latters
name. By ignoring the petitioners showing of its plain error in
dismissing Civil Case No. TM-983, and by disregarding the
allegations of the complaint, the RTC acted whimsically and
capriciously.
Given all the foregoing, the RTC committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The term grave abuse
of discretion connotes whimsical and capricious exercise of
judgment as is equivalent to excess, or lack of jurisdiction. The
abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of
a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined
by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power
is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of
passion or hostility.
2. Yes. The settled rule precluding certiorari as a remedy against
the final order when appeal is available notwithstanding, the
Court rules that the CA should have given due course to and
granted the petition for certiorari for two exceptional reasons,
namely: (a) the broader interest of justice demanded that
certiorari be given due course to avoid the undeserved grossly
unjust result that would befall the petitioners otherwise; and (b)
the order of the RTC granting the motion to dismiss on ground of

lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter evidently constituted

grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.
On occasion, the Court has considered certiorari as the proper
remedy despite the availability of appeal, or other remedy in the
ordinary course of law. In Francisco Motors Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, the Court has declared that the requirement that there
must be no appeal, or any plain speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law admits of exceptions, such as: (a) when
it is necessary to prevent irreparable damages and injury to a
party; (b) where the trial judge capriciously and whimsically
exercised his judgment; (c) where there may be danger of a
failure of justice; (d) where an appeal would be slow, inadequate,
and insufficient; (e) where the issue raised is one purely of law; (f)
where public interest is involved; and (g) in case of urgency.
Specifically, the Court has held that the availability of appeal as a
remedy does not constitute sufficient ground to prevent or
preclude a party from making use of certiorari if appeal is not an
adequate remedy, or an equally beneficial, or speedy remedy. It is
inadequacy, not the mere absence of all other legal remedies and
the danger of failure of justice without the writ, that must usually
determine the propriety of certiorari.
The dismissal of Civil Case, unless undone, would leave the
petitioners bereft of any remedy to protect their substantial rights
or interests in the land. As such, they would suffer grave injustice
and irreparable damage. In that situation, the RTCs dismissal
should be annulled through certiorari, for the task of the remedy
was to do justice to the unjustly aggrieved. WHEREFORE, the
Court grants the petition for certiorari.