G.R. No.

70484 January 29, 1988

ROMAN C. TUASON and REMEDIOS . TUASON, !y a""orn#y$%n$&a'" Tr%n%dad S. %ado, petitioners,
vs.
REGISTER O( DEEDS, CA)OOCAN C%"y, MINISTR* O( JUSTICE, and "+# NATIONA) TREASURER,
r#,-ond#n",. TOMASA .ARTO)OME, %n +#r o/n !#+a0& and %n !#+a0& o& "+# o"+#r 1#1!#r, o& "+#
2Con,u#0o 3#%4+", 3o1#o/n#r, A,,o'%a"%on,2 petitioners-intervenors.
Do'"r%n#5 Certiorari, in reality, is directed against an unlawful exercise of power. It is proper when the
doneby an officer in the performance of what in essence is a judicial function, if it be shown that the acts
were done without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. Certiorari may also be
treated as a Prohibition if the averments are sufficient.
(ACTS5
1. Petitioner spouses, the uasons, were retired public school teachers.
!. hey bought a piece of land in Caloocan from Carmel "arms
#. $ yrs thereafter, they wo%e up one morning to discover that by presidential flat, they were no
longer the owners of the land.
&. heir land and the other lots in the subdivision had been 'declared open for disposition and sale
to the members of the (alacanang )omeowners *ssociation, Inc., the present bona
fide occupants thereof.'
+. * year after the declaration of martial law, (arcos ssued P, !-# with immediate effect.
.. he decree invalidated inter alia the title of the uasons/ vendor, Carmel "arms, which had earlier
purchased from the 0overnment the land.
a. he land bought by Carmel "arms was part of the ala 1state 2one of the so-called '"riar
3ands'4.
b. Carmel had bought the land under *ct 5o. 11!6 and C.*. 5o. #!, as amended.
7. Presidential ,ecree 5o. !-# made the finding

that Carmel had failed to complete payment of the
price.
a. according to the records of the 8ureau of 3ands, neither the original purchasers nor their
subse9uent transferees have made full payment of all installments of the purchase
money and interest on the lots claimed by the Carmel "arms, Inc., including those on
which the dwellings of the members of said Association stand. )ence, title to said land
has remained with the 0overnment, and the land now occupied by the members of said
association has never ceased to form part of the property of the :epublic of the
Philippines, any and all acts affecting said land and purporting to segregate it from the
said property of the :epublic of the Philippines being therefore null and void ab initio as
against the law and public policy.
$. ;pon this adjudgment, (r. (arcos<
a. Invalidated the titles of Carmel "arms, Inc. and all those derived therefrom, and
b. ,eclared as aforestated "the members of the Malacanang Homeowners Association, Inc.
the present bona fide occupants" of the lots
-. It seems to have completely escaped (r. (arcos/ attention that his decree contained
contradictory declarations.
a. =hile ac%nowledging on the one hand that the lots in the Carmel >ubdivision were
occupied by the buyers thereof, and in fact the latter's dwellings stood thereon, he states
on the other that the "members of the Malacanang Homeowners Association, Inc. (are)
the present bona fide occupants" of all said lots.
16. ?n the strength of this presidential decree, the :egister of ,eeds of Caloocan City caused the
inscription on the uasons/ title, C 5o. $#1&.
11. SC5 he uason >pouses thereupon filed a petition for certiorari assailing the (arcos decree as
an arbitrary measure which deprived them of their property in favor of a selected group, in
violation of the<
a. Constitutional provisions on due process and eminent domain@ and
b. Provisions of the 3and :egistration *ct on the indefeasibility of orrens titles@
ISSUE5 =A5 Certiorari under :ule .+ was proper B C1>
RU)ING5
It is true that the extraodinary writ of certiorari may properly issue to nullify only udicial or !uasi"udicial
acts, unli%e the writ of prohibition which may be directed against acts either udicial or ministerial. >ection
1, :ule .+ of the :ules of Court deals with the writ of certiorari in relation to 'any tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial functions, while >ection ! of the same :ule treats of the writ of prohibition in relation to
'proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, or person ... exercising functions judicial or ministerial.'
8ut the petition will be shown upon analysis to be in reality d%r#'"#d a4a%n," an un0a/&u0 #6#r'%,# o&
7ud%'%a0 -o/#r.
he decree reveals that Mr. Mar'o, #6#r'%,#d an o!8%ou,0y 7ud%'%a0 &un'"%on. )e made a
determination of facts, and applied the law to those facts, declaring what the legal rights of the parties
were in the premises. hese acts essentially constitute a udicial function, or an e#ercise of urisdiction
$ which is the power and authority to hear or try and decide or determine a cause. )e adjudged it to be
an established fact that neither the original purchasers nor their subse9uent transferees have made full
payment of all installments of the purchase money and interest on the lots claimed by Carmel "arms, Inc.,
including those on which the dwellings of the members of ... 2the4 *ssociation 2of homeowners4 stand.'
*nd applying the law to that situation, he made the adjudication that 'title to said land has remained with
the 0overnment, and the land now occupied by the members of said association has never ceased to
form part of the property of the :epublic of the Philippines,' and that /any and all acts affecting said land
and purporting to segregate it from the said property of the :epublic ... 2were4 null and void ab initio as
against the law and public policy.
T+#,# a'", 1ay "+u, !# -ro-#r0y ,"ru'9 do/n !y "+# /r%" o& certiorari, because done by an officer in
the performance of what in essence is a judicial function, if it be shown that the acts were done without or
in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. S%n'# Mr. Mar'o, /a, n#8#r 8#,"#d /%"+
7ud%'%a0 -o/#r, ,u'+ -o/#r, a, #8#ryon# 9no/,, !#%n4 8#,"#d %n "+# Su-r#1# Cour" and ,u'+
%n&#r%or 'our", a, 1ay !# #,"a!0%,+#d !y 0a/

: "+# 7ud%'%a0 a'", don# !y +%1 /#r# %n "+#
'%r'u1,"an'#, %nd%,-u"a!0y -#r-#"ra"#d /%"+ou" 7ur%,d%'"%on. he acts were completely alien to his
office as chief executive, and utterly beyond the permissible scope of the legislative power that he had
assumed as head of the martial law regime.
(oreover, he had assumed to exercise power D i.e. determined the relevant facts and applied the law
thereto without a trial at which all interested parties were accorded the opportunity to adduce evidence to
furnish the basis for a determination of the facts material to the controversy. )e made the finding
ostensibly on the basis of 'the records of the 8ureau of 3ands.' Prescinding from the fact that there is no
indication whatever the nature and reliability of these records and that they are in no sense conclusive, it
is undeniable that the petitioner uasons 2and the petitioners in intervention4 were never confronted with
those records and afforded a chance to dispute their trustworthiness and present countervailing evidence.
his is yet another fatal defect. he adjudication was patently and grossly violative of the right to due
process to which the petitioners are entitled in virtue of the Constitution. (r. (arcos, in other words, not
only arrogated unto himself a power never granted to him by the Constitution or the laws but had in
addition exercised it unconstitutionally.
In any #8#n", "+%, Cour" +a, %" %n %", -o/#r "o "r#a" "+# -#"%"%on &or certiorari a, on# &or -ro+%!%"%on %&
"+# a8#r1#n", o& "+# &or1#r ,u&&%'%#n"0y 1ad# ou" a 'a,# &or "+# 0a""#r. Considered in this wise, it will
also appear that an executive officer had acted without jurisdiction D exercised judicial power not granted
to him by the Constitution or the laws D and had furthermore performed the act in violation of the
constitutional rights of the parties thereby affected. he Court will grant such relief as may be proper and
efficacious in the premises even if not specifically sought or set out in the prayer of the appropriate
pleading, the permissible relief being determined after all not by the prayer but by the basic averments of
the parties/ pleadings.
=)1:1"?:1, Presidential ,ecree 5o. !-# is declared to be unconstitutional and void ab initio.
S#-ara"# O-%n%on5
I concur fully in the main opinion depicting the unparalleled 2d#,-o"%', 'a-r%'%ou,, o--r#,,%8# and
un7u,"%&%a!0# #6#r'%,# o& 4o8#rn1#n" -o/#r2 by the deposed President "erdinand 1. (arcos, as
struc% down by the Court/s unanimous judgment in the case at bar. hese arbitrary, capricious and
oppressive decrees, tailored to suit the deposed President/s every wish and whim, were the product of
unrestrained power, as the deposed President too% over the entire government with the imposition of
martial law.