8/3/2019 Utf-8''Angara v Fedman Digest

1/2

ANGARA v FEDMAN

G.R. NO. 156822

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ; October 18,

2004

NATURE: Motion for ReconsiderationFACTS:- On February 8, 1996, respondent filed acomplaint for Accion Reinvindicatoria and/orQuieting of Title against petitioner before theRegional Trial Court, Nasugbu, Batangas ,claiming to be the rightful owners of the landcurrently occupied by petitioner. They evenconducted a relocation survey.-petitoner on the other hand claimed that he isthe lawful owner; the said parcels of land donot encroach on respondent's property; andassuming that there is such an encroachment,he nevertheless had acquired title thereto byvirtue of acquisitive prescription-RTC ordered the constitution of committee ofthree surveyors composed of geodeticengineers representing the petitioner,respondent and the DENR-On June 22, 2000, the RTC issued subpoena adtestificandum to the three Geodetic Engineerswho composed the Board of Commissioners totestify in connection with their individualreports. The RTC also reminded respondentthat the case was filed as early as February 8,1996, the pre-trial was conducted on January20, 1999 and since then respondent has noteven commenced presenting its evidence onthe merits.-On September 27, 2000, the RTC ordered thedismissal of the case due to the failure of therespondent to prosecute its case for anunreasonable length of time. However, uponrespondent's motion for reconsideration, theRTC reconsidered the order of dismissal.-petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion prayingthat judgment be rendered on the basis of thecommissioners' report and, alternatively, allother persons who will be adversely affected bythe relocation survey be impleaded as parties

-RTC denied the said Omnibus Motion. The RTCheld that according to respondent there was no

joint survey conducted by the commissionersas ordered by it and as agreed upon by theparties, hence the report of the commissioners

cannot be the basis of the judgment, petitionerfiled a motion for reconsideration which wasrejected by the RTC. Petitioner then filed apetition for certiorari with the CA. this too wasrejected. Petitoner filed a petition for certiorariwith the SC. Court denied the petition forreview on certiorari for failure to sufficientlyshow that the CA committed any reversibleerror. Hence, the present Motion forReconsideration

ISSUE: WON CA erred in rejecting the appealHELD: no.-According to petitioner, this is a "simple caseof an alleged 'encroachment' or 'overlapping' ofproperty boundaries." Considering that theissue involves principally a factual andtechnical matter for which the RTC, at theinstance of the parties, created a Panel ofCommissioners has done its job and thechairman submitted his report on the basis ofhis evaluation of the separate surveysconducted by the members. The RTC, however,simply ignored the report on the technical andlame excuse that the Panel of Commissionersdid not conduct a "joint survey."-petitioner submits that the RTC cannot simplyignore the commissioners' report withoutconsidering its merits simply because theparties agreed that the same is not final andbinding. Petitioner argues that the RTC shouldhave considered the merits of the report andacted on its recommendation instead ofrejecting it outright without any cause orreason. As to the insistence of respondent thatthe RTC ordered a "joint survey", petitionersubmits that there is nothing in the order of theRTC defining or specifying what a "joint" surveyis.-Petitioner reiterates his arguments in thepetition that a joint survey, as understood by

respondent, wherein the commissionersliterally go out together, conduct a survey inthe presence of one another, and prepare onereport, could not have been contemplated bythe RTC since the commissioners nominated by

the parties insisted on two different methods orapproaches for the survey.-A battle of semantics is principally beingwaged before this Court. Petitioner argues thatundue emphasis was placed on the words "jointrelocation survey, which literally means onethat is conducted physically together or in thepresence of one another." The orderconstituting the panel of commissioners,however, does not define what a jointrelocation survey entails nor does it lay out thesteps or procedures in conducting the same.Petitioner submits that the term "joint survey"does not rule out a survey that is coordinatedand linked together resulting in a joint findingand recommendation. On the other hand,respondent subscribes to the pronouncementof the RTC that the record is replete withexplicit motion and orders of the court callingfor joint survey.*issue of certiorari (important to note)-It must be emphasized that the petitionbefore the CA is a special civil action forcertiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.Certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy narrow inscope and inflexible in character. It can beinvoked only for an error of jurisdiction, that is,one where the act complained of was issued bythe court, without or in excess of jurisdiction, orwith grave abuse of discretion which istantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction.-In this case, the assailed orders of the RTC arebut resolutions on incidental matters which donot touch on the merits of the case or put anend to the proceedings. They are interlocutoryorders since there leaves something else to bedone by the RTC with respect to the merits ofthe case. Consequently, the Court is perplexedthat, in resolving the petition before it, theCourt of Appeals chose to delve into thewisdom and soundness of the orders of the

8/3/2019 Utf-8''Angara v Fedman Digest

2/2

RTC, overlooking the nature of the petitionbefore it. The supervisory jurisdiction of thecourt to issue a certiorari writ cannot beexercised in order to review the judgment ofthe lower court as to its intrinsic correctness,

either upon the law or the facts of the case-Petitioner failed to demonstrate his claim thatthe RTC acted with grave abuse of discretionamounting to lack or in excess of its

jurisdiction in denying petitioner's prayer forrendition of judgment based on thecommissioners' report. The Rules of Courtclearly provides that the trial court is notbound by the findings of the commissioners or

precluded from disregarding the same. It mayadopt, modify, reject the report or recommit itwith instructions, or require the parties to

present further evidence