Borromeo v.

Garcia
546 SCRA 543
February 26, 2008
Article 3
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks the reversal of the decision of the
Court of Appeals which affirmed the orders of the Regional Trial Court to annotate an easement
of road right of way on the title of petitioner Borromeo Bros. Estate, Inc. in favor of respondent
Edgar John A. Garcia.
On August 17, 1938, Patricia Ruedas Vda. De Andrada executed a document granting a
road right of way to spouses Gil Garcia and Teresa Escao de Garcia over Lot No. 6-H-2
described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 20923, for a valuable consideration. Patricia
eventually sold the property to the petitioner, containing a provision in the deed of sale which
stated that the purchase of Lot No. 6-H-2 was subject to the right of way granted by Patricia to
the Garcia Spouses. On April 17, 1952, the Garcia couple went to the Court of First Instance
of Cebu and moved for the annotation of the document executed by Patricia, which was granted.
Petitioner retained ownership of the lot while the estate of the late Garcia spouses was inherited
by Vicente E. Garcia and Jose E. Garcia from whom respondent acquired his title in 1996.
Respondent then came across the 1952 documents granting the road right of way through
petitioners lot, thus filed before the RTC of Cebu, a cadastral court, impleading the Register of
Deeds to annotate in the TCT a road of right way, which was granted. The petitioner was
furnished with the copy of the order, and subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration and
recall arguing that the court violated its fundamental right to substantive and procedural due
process. The petition was denied, the court ruling that there was no violation of the right of due
process for the petitioner was furnished with a copy of the order, heard the motion for
reconsideration in open court, and allowed both parties to submit their respective memoranda
before its ruling.
Petitioner filed with a petition for certiorari before the CA, while the respondent filed a
motion for execution with the cadastral court which was denied because of the decision of the
CA should still be waited for, for it would be pre-emptive. Eventually the CA decided in favor of
the respondent holding that since no restraining order or writ of injunction was issued in the
other petition, the period on the finality of the Order of the cadastral court was never interrupted;
and that the filing of a petition for certiorari does not prevent the decision from attaining finality
as it is an independent action which does not interrupt the course of the principal action or the
running of the reglementary period involved in the proceedings; Hence this petition.
ISSUE(S):
1. Whether or not the petitioners were denied of substantive and procedural right to due
process.
1
Prepared by: Jo-Anne Coloquio

HELD:
1. No.
The Court ruled that the CA was correct in striking down the petition of the petitioner on
procedural grounds. The filing of a petition for certiorari before the CA limits the determination
to whether there was an error of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
cadastral court, both errors the CA did not find. The cadastral court did not deny petitioner of its
right to due process of law for both the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit the
evidence in support of ones defense were afforded the petitioner. As long as a party is given the
opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he would have no reason to complain, for it is
this opportunity to be heard that makes up the essence of due process. The cadastral court
furnished the petitioner a copy of its order, and eventually heard the motion for reconsideration
in open court, allowing both parties to present their respective arguments and their respective
memoranda prior to the ruling. Moreover, the orders of the cadastral court were based on
established facts and substantive evidence on the existence of the grant of an easement of road
right of way in favor of respondent. Therefore the CA was justified in deciding in favor of the
respondent.

2
Prepared by: Jo-Anne Coloquio