Certiorari Not a Substitute for Appeal: Lessons from Nuque v. Aquino

The Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Nuque v. Aquino (G.R. No. 193058) is a pointed reminder that procedural rules are not mere technicalities. The case involved a landowner who, unhappy with a trial court’s denial of his motion for a writ of possession, skipped both an appeal and a motion for reconsideration and went straight to the Court of Appeals with a petition for certiorari. The High Court denied his petition, reaffirming two well-settled rules: certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal, and a motion for reconsideration is generally a precondition for filing one.

The Facts of the Case

Edgar Nuque bought three parcels of land in Gerona, Tarlac, at a public auction in 1999. The properties were originally owned by Hospicia Cardona, who had held titles since the 1930s and 1940s. Later, Nuque discovered that respondent Fidel Aquino had obtained a free patent over two of the lots in 1996—even though Cardona already owned them—and sold them to the spouses Alejandro and Erlinda Babina, who obtained their own title in 2002.

Nuque filed a complaint for cancellation of title with damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in his favor in 2004, declaring the respondents’ titles void. The decision became final and executory in 2006. In 2009, the RTC cancelled the respondents’ title, and Nuque then filed an ex-parte motion for a writ of possession. The RTC denied it, reasoning that his original complaint was only for cancellation of title and did not include a prayer for possession.

Instead of appealing that denial, Nuque filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, without first moving for reconsideration. The appellate court dismissed his petition on that ground, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

The Issue

The central question was whether Nuque could properly avail of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to challenge the RTC’s denial of his motion for a writ of possession, despite not having filed a motion for reconsideration or an appeal.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court denied Nuque’s petition. It made three key points.

First, the RTC order was final, so the proper remedy was appeal. The Court agreed with Nuque that the order denying his motion for a writ of possession was a final order because it left nothing else to be resolved. From that premise, however, the correct remedy was an ordinary appeal, not certiorari. A petition for certiorari is available only when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Because appeal was available, certiorari was not.

Second, a motion for reconsideration is generally required before filing certiorari. Even if certiorari had been the proper remedy, the Court noted that jurisprudence is clear: the plain and adequate remedy referred to in Rule 65 includes a motion for reconsideration of the assailed order. Filing one is an indispensable condition to a certiorari petition. While there are exceptions—such as when a motion for reconsideration would be useless, when the order is a patent nullity, or when the issue is purely one of law—Nuque failed to demonstrate that any exception applied.

Third, a litigant cannot unilaterally decide that a motion for reconsideration is futile. Nuque argued that he skipped the motion because it would have been useless, given the trial court’s apparent mindset. The Court rejected this, stating that a party may not arrogate to himself the determination of whether a motion for reconsideration is necessary. The trial court must be given the chance to review its own pronouncements before being haled to a higher court.

Why This Matters

The decision underscores that procedural rules are designed to ensure the orderly and speedy administration of justice. While courts sometimes relax the rules, that leniency is not a license for litigants to take procedural shortcuts. A party who misses an appeal or skips a motion for reconsideration cannot use certiorari as a backdoor remedy.

Practical Takeaways

• Know your remedy. If a trial court issues a final order, the ordinary remedy is an appeal, not certiorari. Certiorari is reserved for cases where no appeal is available and there is grave abuse of discretion.
• File a motion for reconsideration first. Before going to the Court of Appeals via certiorari, a litigant must generally move for reconsideration of the assailed order. Exceptions exist, but they must be clearly shown.
• Do not assume futility. A belief that a motion for reconsideration would be denied is not enough. A litigant must show a concrete, compelling, and valid reason to dispense with it.
• Plan the pleadings carefully. In a complaint, include all prayers for relief—such as possession—that may be needed later. A final judgment cannot be expanded after the fact.
• Respect finality. A decision that has become final and executory is immutable. Post-judgment motions must be grounded on the judgment actually rendered, not on new or additional reliefs.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.