Brondial Rule 40-56 Appeals

1 | REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1: CIVIL PROCEDURE
CECILIA B. ESTINOZO vs. COURT OF part-time secretary at FCR Recruitment

APPEALS, FORMER SIXTEENTH Agency owned by Fe Corazon Ramirez;
DIVISION, and PEOPLE OF THE that she received the amounts claimed
PHILIPPINES by the complainants and remitted the
G.R. No. 150276. February 12, 2008. same to Ramirez; that complainants
THIRD DIVISION. NACHURA, J. actually transacted with Ramirez and not
with her and that she was only forced to
APPEAL AND CERTIORARI; MUTUALLY execute the promissory notes.
EXCLUSIVE
On November 9, 1994, the RTC found
FACTS: Petitioner Cecilia Estinozo while petitioner guilty beyond reasonable
in Sogod, Southern Leyte, represented to doubt of the charges of estafa.
private complainants Gaudencio Ang, Aggrieved, petitioner appealed the case
Rogelio Ceniza, Nilo Cabardo, Salvacion to the CA which affirmed the ruling of the
Nueve, Virgilio Maunes, Apolinaria trial court.
Olayvar, and Mariza Florendo that she
was one of the owners of Golden On May 30, 2001, within the 15-day
Overseas Employment and that she was reglementary period to file a motion for
recruiting workers to be sent abroad. She reconsideration or a petition for review,
then asked from the said complainants petitioner filed with the appellate court a
the payment of placement and Motion for Extension of Time to File a
processing fees totaling P15,000.00. Motion for Reconsideration. On June 28,
2001, the CA, in the its Resolution,
Private complainants paid the fees, went denied the said motion pursuant to Rule
with petitioner to Manila. On the 52, Section 1 of the Rules of Court and
promised date of their departure, Rule 9, Section 2 of the Revised Internal
however, private complainants never left Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA).
the country. Came November 1986 and Petitioner then filed a Motion for
still they were not deployed. This Reconsideration of the June 28, 2001
prompted private complainants to Resolution of the CA but the appellate
suspect that something was amiss, and court denied the same, on August 17,
they demanded the return of their 2001. Displeased with this series of
money. Petitioner assured them refund of denials, petitioner filed with the Supreme
the fees and even executed promissory Court a Petition for Certiorari under Rule
notes to several of the complainants; but, 65 assailing all the issuances of the CA.
as before, her assurances were mere
pretenses. ISSUE: WON SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION FOR
CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 IS THE
Complainants then filed seven separate PROPER REMEDY AVAILED OF BY THE
Informations for Estafa against petitioner PETITIONER.
with the RTC of Maasin, Southern Leyte.
On request of petitioner, the cases were RULING:
consolidated and jointly heard by the trial
court. No. The petition is the wrong remedy to
question the appellate courts issuances.
During the trial, in her defense, petitioner Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
testified, among others, that she was an expressly provides that a party desiring
employee of the COA who worked as a to appeal by certiorari from a judgment
AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

QUINTO, VILLAMIN, VERGARA-HUERTA
or final order or resolution of the CA may Extension of Time to File a Motion for
file a verified petition for review on Reconsideration.
certiorari. Considering that, in this case,
appeal by certiorari was available to It is well to point out that with
petitioner, she effectively foreclosed her petitioners erroneous filing of a motion
right to resort to a special civil action for for extension of time and with her non-
certiorari, a limited form of review and a filing of a motion for reconsideration or a
remedy of last recourse, which lies only petition for review from the CAs
where there is no appeal or plain, speedy decision, the challenged decision has
and adequate remedy in the ordinary already attained finality and may no
course of law. longer be reviewed. The instant Rule 65
petition cannot even substitute for the
A petition for review on certiorari lost appealcertiorari is not a procedural
under Rule 45 and a petition for device to deprive the winning party of
certiorari under Rule 65 are the fruits of the judgment in his or her
mutually exclusive remedies. favor. When a decision becomes final and
Certiorari cannot co-exist with an appeal executory, the court loses jurisdiction
or any other adequate remedy. The over the case and not even an appellate
nature of the questions of law intended court will have the power to review the
to be raised on appeal is of no said judgment. Otherwise, there will be
consequence. It may well be that those no end to litigation and this will set to
questions of law will treat exclusively of naught the main role of courts of justice
whether or not the judgment or final to assist in the enforcement of the rule of
order was rendered without or in excess law and the maintenance of peace and
of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of order by settling justiciable controversies
discretion. This is immaterial. The with finality.
remedy is appeal, not certiorari as a
special civil action. Spouses Reterta vs. Spouses Mores
G.R. No. 159941
Granting arguendo that the instant August 17, 2011
certiorari petition is an appropriate Subject of Appeal
remedy, still the Court cannot grant the
writ prayed for because there is no grave Facts: The petitioners commenced
abuse of discretion committed by the CA an action for quieting of title and
in the challenged issuances. The rule, as reconveyance in the RTC in Trece Martires
it stands now without exception, is that City averring that they were the true and
the 15-day reglementary period for real owners of the parcel of land (the
appealing or filing a motion for land) situated in Trez Cruzes, Tanza,
reconsideration or new trial cannot Cavite, containing an area of 47,708
be extended, except in cases before the square meters, having inherited the land
Supreme Court, as one of last resort, from their father; that their late father
which may, in its sound discretion grant had been the grantee of the land by
the extension requested. This rule also virtue of his occupation and cultivation;
applies even if the motion is filed before that their late father and his
the expiration of the period sought to be predecessors in interest had been in
extended. Thus, the appellate court open, exclusive, notorious, and
correctly denied petitioners Motion for continuous possession of the land for
more than 30 years; that they had

discovered in 1999 an affidavit dated respondents motion to dismiss was a
March 1, 1966 that their father had final, as distinguished from an
purportedly executed whereby he had interlocutory, order against which the
waived his rights, interests, and proper remedy was an appeal in due
participation in the land; that by virtue of course. Certiorari, as an extraordinary
the affidavit, Sales Certificate No. V-769 remedy, is not substitute for appeal due
had been issued in favor of respondent to its being availed of only when there is
Lorenzo Mores by the then Department of no appeal, or plain, speedy and adequate
Agriculture and Natural Resources; and remedy in the ordinary course of law.
that Transfer Certificate of Title No. T- Nonetheless, the petitioners posit
64071 had later issued to the that a special civil action
respondents. for certiorari was their proper remedy to
assail the order of dismissal in light of
The respondents, as defendants, certain rules of procedure,specifically
filed a motion to dismiss, insisting that pointing out that the second paragraph
the RTC had no jurisdiction to take of Section 1 of Rule 37 of the Rules of
cognizance of case due to the land being Court (An order denying a motion for
friar land, and that the petitioners had no new trial or reconsideration is not
legal personality to commence the case. appealable, the remedy being an appeal
from the judgment or final
The RTC granted the motion to order) prohibited an appeal of a denial of
dismiss. The petitioners then timely filed the motion for reconsideration, and that
a motion for reconsideration, but the RTC the second paragraph of Section 1 of
denied their motion for reconsideration. Rule 41 of the Rules of Court ( No appeal
Therefore, the petitioners assailed the may be taken from: xxx An order
dismissal via petition for certiorari, but denying a motion for new trial or
the CA dismissed the petition holding reconsideration) expressly declared that
that the basic requisite for the special an order denying a motion for
civil action of certiorari to lie is that there reconsideration was not appealable. They
is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and remind that the third paragraph of
adequate remedy in the ordinary course Section 1 of Rule 41 expressly provided
of law. The remedy of the petitioners was that in the instances where the judgment
to have appealed the same to this or final order is not appealable, the
Court. But petitioners did not. Instead aggrieved party may file an appropriate
they filed the present special civil action special civil action under Rule 65.
for certiorari after the decision of the
court a quo has become final. Certiorari, The petitioners position has no
however cannot be used as a substitute basis.
for the lost remedy of appeal.
The MR of petitioners was likewise For one, the order that the
denied, hence this appeal. petitioners really wanted to obtain relief
from was the order granting the
Issue: Whether or not the CA erred respondents motion to dismiss, not the
in dismissing the petition for certiorari denial of the motion for reconsideration.
The fact that the order granting
Held:The CA seems to be correct in the motion to dismiss was a final order
dismissing the petition for certiorari, for thereby completely disposing of the
considering that the order granting the case, leaving nothing more for the trial

court to do in the action, truly called for trial or reconsideration, or
an appeal, instead of certiorari, as the the taking of an appeal) and
correct remedy. ultimately, of course, to
cause the execution of the
The fundamental distinction judgment once it becomes
between a final judgment or order, on final or, to use the
one hand, and an interlocutory order, on established and more
the other hand, has been outlined distinctive term, final and
in Investments, Inc. v. Court of executory.
Appeals, viz: xxx
Conversely, an order
The concept of final that does not finally
judgment, as distinguished dispose of the case, and
from one which has become does not end the Courts
final (or executory as of right task of adjudicating the
[final and executory]), is parties contentions and
definite and settled. A final determining their rights
judgment or order is one and liabilities as regards
that finally disposes of a each other, but obviously
case, leaving nothing indicates that other
more to be done by the things remain to be done
Court in respect by the Court, is
thereto, e.g., an interlocutory, e.g., an order
adjudication on the merits denying a motion to dismiss
which, on the basis of the under Rule 16 of the Rules, or
evidence presented at the granting a motion for
trial declares extension of time to file a
categorically what the pleading, or authorizing
rights and obligations of amendment thereof, or
the parties are and which granting or denying
party is in the right; or a applications for
judgment or order that postponement, or production
dismisses an action on or inspection of documents or
the ground, for instance, things, etc. Unlike a final
of res judicata or judgment or order, which
prescription. Once is appealable, as above
rendered, the task of the pointed out, an
Court is ended, as far as interlocutory order may
deciding the controversy not be questioned on
or determining the rights appeal except only as
and liabilities of the part of an appeal that
litigants is concerned. may eventually be taken
Nothing more remains to from the final judgment
be done by the rendered in the case.
Court except to await the
parties next move (which
among others, may consist of Moreover, even Section 9 of Rule
the filing of a motion for new 37 of the Rules of Court, cited by the

petitioners, indicates that the proper when the CA rendered its assailed
remedy against the denial of the decision on May 15, 2002 included an
petitioners motion for order denying a motion for new
reconsideration was an appeal from the trial or motion for reconsideration, to wit:
final order dismissing the action upon the
respondents motion to dismiss. The said Section 1. Subject of
rule explicitly states thusly: appeal. An appeal may be
taken from a judgment or
Section 9. Remedy final order that completely
against order denying a disposes of the case, or of a
motion for new trial or particular matter therein
reconsideration. An order when declared by these
denying a motion for new Rules to be appealable.
trial or reconsideration is not
appealable, the remedy No appeal may be taken
being an appeal from the from:
judgment or final order.
(a) An order denying a
The restriction against an appeal of motion for new trial or
a denial of a motion for reconsideration;
reconsideration independently of a
judgment or final order is logical and (b) An order denying a
reasonable. A motion for petition for relief or any
reconsideration is not putting forward a similar motion seeking relief
new issue, or presenting new evidence, from judgment;
or changing the theory of the case, but is
only seeking a reconsideration of the (c) An interlocutory
judgment or final order based on the order;
same issues, contentions, and evidence
either because: (a) the damages (d) An order disallowing
awarded are excessive; or (b) the or dismissing an appeal;
evidence is insufficient to justify the
decision or final order; or (c) the decision (e) An order denying a
or final order is contrary to law. By motion to set aside a
denying a motion for reconsideration, or judgment by consent,
by granting it only partially, therefore, a confession or compromise on
trial court finds no reason either to the ground of fraud, mistake
reverse or to modify its judgment or final or duress, or any other
order, and leaves the judgment or final ground vitiating consent;
order to stand. The remedy from the
denial is to assail the denial in the course (f) An order of execution;
of an appeal of the judgment or final
order itself. (g) A judgment or final
order for or against one or
The enumeration of the orders that more of several parties or in
were not appealable made in the 1997 separate claims,
version of Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules counterclaims, cross-claims
of Court the version in force at the time and third-party complaints,

while the main case is velosos civil case (Breach of contract
pending, unless the court and damages). Later RTC branch 227
allows an appeal therefrom; issued a resolution/decision dismissing
and velosos case. Veloso received a copy of
such resolution/decision on September
(h) An order dismissing 26, 2003. He then filed a Motion for
an action without prejudice. Reconsideration of said judgment on
October 10, 2003, which RTC-Branch 227
In all the above denied in an order dated December 30,
instances where the 2003. He received a copy of the RTC-
judgment or final order is not Branch 227 order denying his Motion for
appealable, the aggrieved Reconsideration on February 20, 2004,
party may file an appropriate and he filed his Notice of Appeal on
special civil action under Rule March 1, 2004. However, the RTC-Branch
65. (n) 227, in an Order dated March 23, 2004,
dismissed Velosos appeal for being filed
out of time.
It is true that Administrative Matter
No. 07-7-12-SC, effective December 27, ISSUE: WHETHER VELOSOS NOTICE OF
2007, has since amended Section 1, Rule APPEAL WAS FILED OUT OF TIME.
41, supra, by deleting an order denying
a motion for new trial or motion for HELD: No. Jurisprudence has settled the
reconsideration from the enumeration of fresh period rule, according to which, an
non-appealable orders, and that such a ordinary appeal from the RTC to the
revision of a procedural rule may be Court of Appeals, under Section 3 of Rule
retroactively applied. However, to 41 of the Rules of Court, shall be taken
reverse the CA on that basis would not within fifteen (15) days either from
be right and proper, simply because the receipt of the original judgment of the
CA correctly applied the rule of procedure trial court or from receipt of the final
in force at the time when it issued its order of the trial court dismissing or
assailed final order. denying the motion for new trial or
motion for reconsideration.
MANALOTO VS VELOSO In Sumiran v. Damaso, we presented a
ORDINARY APPEAL survey of the cases applying the fresh
period rule:
FACTS: Manaloto et al. filed a case of As early as 2005, the Court
unlawful detainer before the MeTC categorically declared in Neypes v.
against Veloso. MeTC later on decided in Court of Appeals that by virtue of
favor of Manaloto et al. This prompted the power of the Supreme Court to
Veloso to go to the RTC which in turn amend, repeal and create new
reversed the MeTCs decision. Prior, procedural rules in all courts, the
however, to such RTCs decision and Court is allowing a fresh period of
while the appeal was pending therein, 15 days within which to file a
Veloso filed a civil case of breach of notice of appeal in the RTC,
contract and damages against Manaloto counted from receipt of the order
et al before the RTC, branch 227. dismissing or denying a motion for
Manaloto et al in turn filed an omnibus new trial or motion for
motion, praying for the dismissal of reconsideration. This would

standardize the appeal periods Petitioner Generosa filed before the RTC
provided in the Rules and do away of Muntinlupa City a Complaint for
with the confusion as to when the Collection and Declaration of Nullity
15-day appeal period should be of Deed of Absolute Sale with
counted. Thus, the Court stated: application for Injunction against her
To recapitulate, a party-litigant may own son, respondent Luis and one Ifzal
either file his notice of appeal Ali.
within 15 days from receipt of the Petitioner averred that Luis and Ifzal
Regional Trial Court's decision or entered into a Contract of Lease over a
file it within 15 days from receipt of 1,244-sq. meter real property, situated at
the order (the "final order") No. 1366 Caballero St., Dasmarias
denying his motion for new trial or Village, Makati City. The lease contract
motion for reconsideration. declared that Luis was the absolute and
Obviously, the new 15-day period registered owner of the property.
may be availed of only if either Petitioner alleged that such declaration
motion is filed; otherwise, the was erroneous because she and
decision becomes final and respondent were co-owners of the
executory after the lapse of the property in equal shares.
original appeal period provided in
PETITIONER narrated that: 1.) she and
Rule 41, Section 3.
respondent executed their respective
Deeds of Donation, conveying the
In the case before us, Veloso received a
property in favor of The Porfirio D.
copy of the Resolution dated September
Latorre Memorial & Fr. Luis Esteban
2, 2003 of the RTC-Branch 227 dismissing
Latorre Foundation, Inc. Later on,
his complaint in Civil Case No. Q-02-
both executed separate Deeds of
48341 on September 26, 2003. Fourteen
Revocation of Donation and
days thereafter, on October 10, 2003,
Reconveyance of the subject property
Veloso filed a Motion for Reconsideration
but such Deeds were not registered so
of said resolution. The RTC-Branch 227
the property remained in the name
denied Velosos Motion for
of the Foundation; 2.) She discovered
Reconsideration in an Order dated
that respondent caused the annotation of
December 30, 2003, which he received
an adverse claim on the TCT of the
on February 20, 2004. On March 1, 2004,
property, claiming full ownership over the
just after nine days from receipt of the
same by virtue of a Deed of Absolute
order denying his Motion for
Sale allegedly executed by petitioner in
Reconsideration, Veloso already filed his
favor of respondent. She claimed that the
Notice of Appeal. Clearly, under the fresh
deed was a falsified document; that her
period rule, Veloso was able to file his
signature thereon was forged by
appeal well-within the prescriptive period
respondent; and that she never received
of 15 days.
P21 Million or any other amount as
consideration for her share of the
GENEROSA ALMEDA LATORRE vs. property. Thus, petitioner prayed that
LUIS ESTEBAN LATORRE Ifzal be enjoined from paying the rentals
G.R. No. 183926 March 29, to respondent, and the latter from
2010 receiving said rentals; that both be
RULE 45 IN RELATION TO RULE 41 ordered to pay petitioner her share of the
rentals; and that respondent be enjoined
FACTS: from asserting full ownership over the
property and from committing any other Ifzal and respondent to pay petitioner her
act in derogation of petitioner's interests. share of the rentals; 3.) ordered
Petitioner also prayed for the payment of respondent not to commit any act in
moral and exemplary damages, litigation derogation of petitioner's interest over
expenses, and costs of the suit. the property. RTC denied respondent's
RESPONDENT narrated that: 1.) he was motion to dismiss. Thus, trial on the
a former Opus Dei priest but he left the merits ensued.
congregation after he was maltreated by Respondent filed an Answer Ad
his Spanish superiors; 2.) for almost 20 Cautelam, insisting that the case was a
years, the Opus Dei divested the Latorre real action and that the venue was
family of several real properties. In order improperly laid.
to spare the property from the Opus Dei, The RTC dismissed petitioner's claim
both agreed to donate it to the against Ifzal because the dispute was
Foundation. Both also decided to revoke clearly between petitioner and
the donation. The Foundation consented respondent and ruled in favor of
to the revocation but due to lack of respondent, declaring that the case
funds, the title was never transferred and should have been filed and tried in the
remained in the name of the Foundation; RTC of Makati City.
3.) petitioner lived with him and his
Petitioner filed her Motion for
family from 1988 to 2000, and that he
Reconsideration, which the RTC denied
provided for petitioner's needs, spending
for lack of merit. Hence, this Petition for
a substantial amount of money; that
Review on Certiorariunder Rule 45.
because of this, and the fact that the
rentals paid for the use of the subject ISSUES: I. Whether the RTC erred in
property went to petitioner, both parties treating the venue as jurisdiction and in
agreed that petitioner would convey her treating petitioner's complaint as a real
share over the subject property to action.
respondent; and that petitioner executed II. Whether the filing of the case
a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of directly with this Court ran afoul of
respondent; 4.) that petitioner left the the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
house because she detested his act of Yes
firing their driver. It was then that this HELD: The Petition is DENIED.
case was filed against him by petitioner.
Petitioner came directly to this Court on a
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on Petition for Review on Certiorari
the sole ground that the venue of the under Rule 45, in relation to Rule 41,
case was improperly laid since the case of the Rules of Civil Procedure on alleged
was a real action. The property is pure questions of law. In Murillo v.
located in Makati City, hence, petitioner Consul, we laid down a doctrine that was
should have filed the case before later adopted by the 1997 Revised Rules
the RTC of Makati City and not of of Civil Procedure. In that case, this Court
Muntinlupa City. had the occasion to clarify the three (3)
Ifzal also filed his motion to dismiss on modes of appeal from decisions of the
the ground of want of jurisdiction, RTC, namely: (1) ordinary appeal or
asserting that he was immune from suit appeal by writ of error, where judgment
because he was an officer of the Asian was rendered in a civil or criminal action
Development Bank. by the RTC in the exercise of its original
RTC: 1.) issued a TRO; 2.) directed both jurisdiction; (2) petition for review, where

judgment was rendered by the RTC in the by this Court of the probative value of
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; and the evidence presented, taking into
(3) petition for review to the Supreme account the fact that the RTC failed to
Court. adjudicate this controversy on the merits.
The first mode of appeal, governed by This, unfortunately, we cannot do. It thus
Rule 41, is brought to the Court of becomes exceedingly clear that the filing
Appeals (CA) on questions of fact or of the case directly with this Court ran
mixed questions of fact and law. The afoul of the doctrine of hierarchy of
second mode of appeal, covered by Rule courts. Pursuant to this doctrine, direct
42, is brought to the CA on questions of resort from the lower courts to the
fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact Supreme Court will not be entertained
and law. The third mode of appeal, unless the appropriate remedy sought
provided in Rule 45, is filed with the cannot be obtained in the lower
Supreme Court only on questions of law. tribunals. This Court is a court of last
resort, and must so remain if it is to
A question of law arises when there is satisfactorily perform the functions
doubt as to what the law is on a certain assigned to it by the Constitution and by
state of facts, while there is a question of immemorial tradition.
fact when the doubt arises as to the truth
or falsity of the alleged facts. Our ruling
in Velayo-Fong v. Velayo is instructive: ARIEL A. TRES REYES vs. MAXIMS
TEA HOUSE and JOCELYN POON
A question of law arises when there is [G.R. No. 140853. February 27,
doubt as to what the law is on a certain 2003]
state of facts, while there is a question of
fact when the doubt arises as to the truth FACTS: Ariel Tres Reyes was hired by
or falsity of the alleged facts. For a Maxims Tea House as a driver, assigning
question to be one of law, the same must him to its Ermita, Manila Branch. Ariel
not involve an examination of the thereafter was tasked to fetch the
probative value of the evidence employees of Savannah Moon. Ariel Tres
presented by the litigants or any of them. Reyes complied, and while he was driving
The resolution of the issue must rest the van with the employees of Savannah
solely on what the law provides on the Moon inside, it collided with a truck. The
given set of circumstances. Once it is collision resulted to Physical Injuries
clear that the issue invites a review of sustained by Tres Reyes and the
the evidence presented, the question Employee. Thereafter, Tres Reyes was
posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of terminated by Maxims Tea House.
whether a question is one of law or of Tres Reyes filed a complaint for illegal
fact is not the appellation given to such dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. The
question by the party raising the same; Labor Arbiter however, ruled in favor of
rather, it is whether the appellate court Maxims Tea House and found Tres Reyes
can determine the issue raised without grossly negligent for failure to avoid the
reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in collision. Tres Reyes then file a PARTIAL
which case, it is a question of law; MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
otherwise it is a question of fact. before the NLRC. The NLRC treated the
In her Reply to respondents Comment, Partial Motion for Reconsideration as an
petitioner prayed that this Court decide APPEAL, then ruled in favor of Tres Reyes
the case on the merits. To do so, stating that he was not negligent.
however, would require the examination
10 | R E M E D I A L L A W R E V I E W 1 : C I V I L P R O C E D U R E
Maxims Tea House then file a special respect to material dates is a statement
civil action of Certiorari with the CA, of the date when the appellant received
arguing that the the NLRC committed a the appealed decision. We rule that
grave abuse of discretion amounting to petitioners declaration in his motion that
want or excess of jurisdiction in giving he received a copy of the Labor Arbiters
due course to petitioners Motion for decision on September 28, 1998 is more
Partial Reconsideration notwithstanding than sufficient compliance with said
that it was a prohibited pleading under requirement imposed by Section 3, Rule
Sec. 17 (now Sec. 19), Rule V of the NLRC VI. We likewise find that the motion in
Rules of Procedure and despite want of question was filed with the NLRC on
showing that it was seasonably filed. October 8, 1998 or on the
The case was then brought before the tenth (10th) day from the date of receipt
Supreme Court. by petitioner of his copy of the Labor
Arbiters decision. Otherwise put, said
ISSUE: WHETHER THE CA ERRED IN pleading was filed within the
HOLDING THAT THE NLRC COMMITTED reglementary ten-day period, as provided
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN for in Section 1, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules
TREATING AS AN APPEAL THE PARTIAL of Procedure. The law on the timeliness
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF TRES of an appeal from the decision, award, or
REYES. order of the Labor Arbiters, states clearly
that the aggrieved party has ten (10)
HELD:YES. The issue involves a question calendar days from receipt thereof to
of substance versus form. Strictly appeal to the Commission.Needless to
speaking, a motion for say, an appeal filed at the last minute of
reconsideration of a decision, order, the last day of said period is, for all
or award of a Labor Arbiter is intents and purposes, still seasonably
prohibited by Section 19, Rule V of filed.
the NLRC Rules of Procedure. But the Court of Appeals accepted
said rule likewise allows that a respondents averment that petitioners
motion for reconsideration shall be Motion for Partial Reconsideration was
treated as an appeal provided it not verified. The records, however,
meets all the requisites of an contradict their averments. We find that
appeal. Petitioner insists that his petitioner verified his motion to
pleading was in form a motion for reconsider the Labor Arbiters decision on
reconsideration, but in substance it was October 8, 1998, or on the same day that
an appeal which complied with all the it was filed. We must, perforce, rule that
technical requirements. Respondents petitioner has substantially complied with
counter that the formal requisites take the verification requirement as provided
precedence. for in Section 3, Rule VI of the
We have minutely scrutinized the records Commissions Rules of Procedure.
of this case, particularly the questioned In labor cases, rules of procedure should
Motion for Partial Reconsideration, but we not be applied in a very rigid and
find no basis for the appellate courts technical sense. They are merely tools
finding that said pleading did not contain designed to facilitate the attainment of
a statement as to when petitioner justice, and where their strict application
received a copy of the decision. would result in the frustration rather than
Note that all that Section 3, Rule VI of the promotion of substantial justice,
NLRC Rules of Procedure requires with technicalities must be avoided.

Technicalities should not be permitted to Meanwhile, on February 15, 2000, the
stand in the way of equitably and appellate courts Fourth Division
completely resolving the rights and dismissed LBPs ordinary appeal primarily
obligations of the parties. Where the holding that LBP availed of the wrong
ends of substantial justice shall be better mode of appeal. LBP filed a motion for
served, the application of technical rules reconsideration but the same was
of procedure may be relaxed. denied.
On July 14, 2000, LBP filed before this

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. Court a petition for review of the decision
ARLENE DE LEON and BERNARDO DE of the Court of Appeals. On September
LEON, 10, 2002, this Court rendered a Decision
G.R. No. 143275 March 20, affirming the decision of the dismissal of
2003 the appellate court due to the wrong
mode of appeal.
FACTS:The Respondent spouses Arlene
and Bernardo de Leon filed a petition to ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE LAND
fix the just compensation of a parcel of BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES HAD CHOSEN
land2 before the Regional Trial Court of THE WRONG MODE OF APPEAL.
Tarlac, Branch 63, acting as a Special
Agrarian Court. On December 19, 1997, HELD:
the agrarian court rendered summary
judgment fixing the compensation of the Yes. In affirming the dismissal by the
subject property as follows: (1) appellate court of LBPs ordinary appeal,
P1,260,000 for the 16.69 hectares of this Court held that Section 60of RA 6657
riceland and (2) P2,957,250 for the (The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
30.4160 hectares of sugarland. Law) is clear in providing petition for
review as the appropriate mode of
The Department of Agrarian Reform appeal from decisions of Special Agrarian
(DAR, for brevity) and LBP both filed Courts.
separate appeals using different modes.
DAR filed a petition for review while LBP Section 61(the provision on which LBP
interposed an ordinary appeal by filing a bases its argument that ordinary appeal
notice of appeal. DARs petition for is the correct mode of appeal from
review3 was assigned to the Special Third decisions of Special Agrarian Courts)
Division of the Court of Appeals while merely makes a general reference to the
LBPs ordinary appeal4 was assigned to Rules of Court and does not categorically
the Fourth Division of the same court. prescribe ordinary appeal as the correct
way of questioning decisions of Special
On November 6, 1998, the appellate Agrarian Courts. Thus, we interpreted
courts Special Third Division rendered a Section 61 to mean that the specific rules
decision in the petition for review filed by for petitions for review in the Rules of
DAR, giving due course to the said Court and other relevant procedures of
petition and was ordered by the appeals shall be followed in appealed
appellate court to recomputed the decisions of Special Agrarian Courts.
compensation and pay the legal interest.
LBP pleads that the subject Decision
should at least be given prospective

application considering that more than petitioners, vs. SPOUSES ARMANDO
60 similar agrarian cases filed by LBP via BORRAS and ADELIA LOBATON
ordinary appeal before the Court of BORRAS, respondents.
Appeals are in danger of being dismissed
outright on technical grounds on account G.R. No. 144225. June 17, 2003.*
of our ruling herein. This, according to
LBP, will wreak financial havoc not only Appeals; Certiorari; In a petition for
on LBP as the financial intermediary of review on certiorari under Rule 45,
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform the Supreme Court reviews only
Program but also on the national treasury errors of law and not errors of facts.
and the already depressed economic In a petition for review on
condition of our country. Thus, in the certiorari under Rule 45, this Court
interest of fair play, equity and justice, reviews only errors of law and not
LBP stresses the need for the rules to be errors of facts. The factual findings
relaxed so as to give substantial of the appellate court are generally
consideration to the appealed cases. binding on this Court. This applies
with greater force when both the
On account of the absence of trial court and the Court of Appeals
jurisprudence interpreting Sections 60 are in complete agreement on their
and 61 of RA 6657 regarding the proper factual findings.
way to appeal decisions of Special
Agrarian Courts as well as the conflicting FACTS: Spouses Alfredo sold for Php
decisions of the Court of Appeals 15,000 to Spouses Borras a parcel of land
thereon, LBP cannot be blamed for measuring 81,524 square meters which
availing of the wrong mode. Based on its was mortgaged with DBP for Php 7,000,
own interpretation and reliance on the with the agreement that Spouses Borras
Buenaventura ruling, LBP acted on the will pay the DBP loan and its
mistaken belief that an ordinary appeal is accumulated interest and the balance to
the appropriate manner to question be paid in cash to the sellers.
decisions of Special Agrarian Courts.
Spouses Borras gave Spouses Alfredo the
Hence, in the light of the aforementioned money to pay the loan to DBP which
circumstances, we find it proper to signed the release of mortgage and
emphasize the prospective application of returned the owners duplicate copy of
our Decision dated September 10, 2002. OCT No. 284 to the Alfredos. Spouses
A prospective application of our Decision Borras subsequently paid the balance of
is not only grounded on equity and fair the purchase price of the Subject Land
play but also based on the constitutional for which Carmen Alfredo issued a receipt
tenet that rules of procedure shall not dated 11 March 1970. The Alfredos then
impair substantive rights. delivered to Adelia Borras the owners
duplicate copy of OCT No. 284, with the
SPOUSES GODOFREDO ALFREDO and document of cancellation of mortgage,
CARMEN LIMON ALFREDO, SPOUSES official receipts of realty tax payments,
ARNULFO SAVELLANO and EDITHA B. and tax declaration in the name of
SAVELLANO, DANTON D. Godofredo Alfredo. The Alfredos
MATAWARAN, SPOUSES DELFIN F. introduced the Spouses Borras as the
ESPIRITU, JR. and ESTELA S. new owners of the Subject Land, to the
ESPIRITU and ELIZABETH TUAZON, Natanawans, the old tenants of the

Subject Land. The Borrases then took the Subject Land to Armando and Adelia.
possession of the Subject Land. Adelias cited testimony must be
examined in context not only with her
In January 1994, The Borrases learned entire testimony but also with the other
that hired persons had entered the circumstances.
Subject Land and were cutting trees
under instructions of allegedly new In a petition for review on certiorari
owners of the Subject Land. under Rule 45, this Court reviews only
Subsequently, Armando and Adelia errors of law and not errors of facts. The
discovered that Spouses Alfredo had re- factual findings of the appellate court are
sold portions of the Subject Land to generally binding on this Court. This
several persons. This prompted the applies with greater force when both the
Borrases to file an adverse claim with the trial court and the Court of Appeals are in
Register of Deeds of Bataan. Further, complete agreement on their factual
they discovered that Spouses Alfredo had findings.
secured an owners duplicate copy of
OCT No. 284 after filing a petition in court N.B.
for the issuance of a new copy claiming
in their petition that they lost their Civil Procedure; Actions; Reconveyance;
owners duplicate copy. Spouses Borras Quieting of Title; An action for
wrote the Alfredos complaining about reconveyance is one that seeks to
their acts, but the latter did not reply. transfer property, wrongfully registered
Thus, Armando and Adelia filed a by another, to its rightful and legal
complaint for specific performance. owner.An action for reconveyance is
one that seeks to transfer property,
The trial court rendered its decision in wrongfully registered by another, to its
favor of Spouses Borras. Petitioners rightful and legal owner. The body of the
appealed to the Court of Appeals. Court pleading or complaint determines the
of Appeals issued its Decision affirming nature of an action, not its title or
the decision of the trial court in toto. heading. Thus, the present action should
be treated as one for reconveyance.
In its petition for review under Rule 45
petitioners Alfredo contended that they Prescription; An action for reconveyance
did not deliver the title of the Subject based on an implied trust prescribes in
Land to Armando and Adelia as shown by ten years.To determine when the
Adelia Borras' testimony on cross- prescriptive period commenced in an
examination. action for reconveyance, plaintiffs
possession of the disputed property is
ISSUE: WON THE PETITIONERS material. An action for reconveyance
CONTENTION BE CONSIDERED? based on an implied trust prescribes in
ten years. The ten-year prescriptive
HELD: No. Petitioners raise this factual period applies only if there is an actual
issue for the first time. The Court of need to reconvey the property as when
Appeals could have passed upon this the plaintiff is not in possession of the
issue had petitioners raised this earlier, property. However, if the plaintiff, as the
At any rate, the cited testimony of Adelia real owner of the property also remains
does not convincingly prove that in possession of the property, the
Godofredo and Carmen did not deliver prescriptive period to recover title and

possession of the property does not run application forms. Thereafter, they were
against him. In such a case, an action for told to return to the office with
reconveyance, if nonetheless filed, would P10,000.00 each as processing fee.
be in the nature of a suit for quieting of
title, an action that is imprescriptible. On July 30, 1998, private complainants
returned to the agency to pay the
Laches; Neither is the action barred by processing fees. Mrs. Reyes was not at
laches. Neither is the action barred by the agency that time, but she called
laches. We have defined laches as the appellant on the telephone to ask her to
failure or neglect, for an unreasonable receive the processing fees. Thereafter,
time, to do that which, by the exercise of appellant advised them to wait for the
due diligence, could or should have been contracts to arrive from the Taiwan
done earlier. It is negligence or omission employers.
to assert a right within a reasonable
time, warranting a presumption that the Two months later, nothing happened to
party entitled to assert it either has their applications. Thus private
abandoned it or declined to assert it. complainants decided to ask for the
refund of their money from appellant6
who told them that the processing fees
PEOPLE VS. CORPUZ, 412 SCRA they had paid were already remitted to
479(2003) Mrs. Reyes. When they talked to Mrs.
APPEALS Reyes, she told them that the money she
received from appellant was in payment
The principle that findings of facts of the of the latters debt. Thus, on January 13,
trial court, its calibration of the collective 1999, private complainants filed their
testimonies of witnesses and probative complaint with the National Bureau of
weight thereof and its conclusions culled Investigation which led to the arrest and
from said findings are accorded by the detention of appellant.
Court great respect if not conclusive
effect does not apply if the trial court On March 23, 2000, while the case was
ignored, misunderstood or misconstrued before the trial court, private
cogent facts and circumstances of complainants received the refund of their
substance which if considered would processing fees from appellants sister-in-
alter the outcome of the case. law. Consequently, they executed
affidavits of desistance8 from
FACTS: In June 1998, private participation in the case against
complainants Belinda Cabantog, appellant.
Concepcion San Diego, Erlinda Pascual
and Restian Surio went to Alga-Moher For her part, appellant resolutely denied
International Placement Services having a hand in the illegal recruitment
Corporation at 1651 San Marcelino and claimed that she merely received the
Street, Malate, Manila to apply for money on behalf of Mrs. Reyes, the
employment as factory workers in President/General Manager of Alga-Moher
Taiwan. They were accompanied by a International Placement Services
certain Aling Josie who introduced them Corporation, where she had been
to the agencys President and General working as secretary for three months
Manager Mrs. Evelyn Gloria H. Reyes. prior to July 30, 1998. On that day, Mrs.
Mrs. Reyes asked them to accomplish the Reyes called her on the telephone and

told her to receive private complainants witnesses and probative weight
processing fees. In compliance with the thereof and its conclusions culled
order of her employer and since the from said findings are accorded by
cashier was absent, she received the this Court great respect, if not
processing fees of private complainants, conclusive effect, because of the
which she thereafter remitted to Mrs. unique advantage of the trial court
Reyes. She had no knowledge that the in observing and monitoring at close
agencys license was suspended by the range, the conduct, deportment and
POEA on July 29, 1998. demeanor of the witnesses as they
testify before the trial court.
On November 16, 2000, the trial court However, this principle does not
rendered the assailed decision, finding apply if the trial court ignored,
appellant Elizabeth Corpuz guilty beyond misunderstood or misconstrued
reasonable doubt of Illegal Recruitment cogent facts and circumstances of
in Large Scale constituting economic substance which, if considered,
sabotage. would alter the outcome of the case.
The exception obtains in this case.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE
PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THE The records of the case show that Alga-
GUILT OF THE APPELLANT Moher International Placement Service
Corporation is a licensed land-based
HELD: Yes. Appellant contends that she recruitment agency. Its license was valid
is not liable for the foregoing illegal until August 24, 1999. Likewise, appellant
recruitment activities considering that was its registered secretary while Mrs.
she was merely an employee having no Evelyn Gloria H. Reyes is its
control over the recruitment business of President/General Manager. Part of its
the Alga-Moher International Placement regular business activity is to accept
Services Corporation and that she did not applicants who desire to work here or
actually recruit the private complainants. abroad. Appellant, as secretary of the
Moreover, she did not appropriate for her agency, was in charge of the custody and
own use the processing fees she received documentation of the overseas contracts.
and she had no knowledge that the Moreover, as stated in the last sentence
agencys license was suspended by the of Section 6 of RA 8042, the persons who
POEA. may be held liable for illegal recruitment
are the principals, accomplices and
The trial court convicted appellant based accessories. In case of juridical persons,
on its findings that despite the the officers having control, management
suspension of the agencys license, or direction of their business shall be
appellant still convinced the applicants to liable.
give their money with the promise to
land a job abroad. Moreover, as the An employee of a company or
registered secretary of the agency she corporation engaged in illegal
had management control of the recruitment may be held liable as
recruitment business. principal, together with his employer, if it
is shown that he actively and consciously
It is axiomatic that findings of facts participated in illegal recruitment. Settled
of the trial court, its calibration of is the rule that the existence of the
the collective testimonies of corporate entity does not shield from

prosecution the corporate agent who Benitez, filed with the RTC of Sorsogon, a
knowingly and intentionally causes the complaint for damages against petitioner
corporation to commit a crime. The due to the latters failure to honor their
corporation obviously acts, and can act, confirmed tickets.
only by and through its human agents,
and it is their conduct which the law It is alleged in their complaint that Judy
must deter. The employee or agent of a Amor purchased three confirmed plane
corporation engaged in unlawful business tickets for her and her infant son, Gian
naturally aids and abets in the carrying Carlo Amor as well as her sister Jane
on of such business and will be Gamil for the May 8, 1988, 7:10 a.m.
prosecuted as principal if, with flight, PR 178, bound for Manila from
knowledge of the business, its purpose defendants branch office in Legaspi City.
and effect, he consciously contributes his On said date, Judy with Gian, Jane and
efforts to its conduct and promotion, minor Carlo Benitez, nephew of Judy and
however slight his contribution may be. Jane, arrived at the Legaspi Airport at
The law of agency, as applied in civil 6:20 a.m. for PR 178. Carlo Benitez was
cases, has no application in criminal supposed to use the confirmed ticket of a
cases, and no man can escape certain Dra. Emily Chua. They were
punishment when he participates in the accompanied by Atty. Owen Amor and
commission of a crime upon the ground the latters cousin, Salvador Gonzales
that he simply acted as an agent of any who fell in line at the check-in counter
party. The culpability of the employee with four persons ahead of him and three
therefore hinges on his knowledge of the persons behind him.
offense and his active participation in its
commission. Where it is shown that the While waiting for his turn, Gonzales was
employee was merely acting under the asked by Lloyd Fojas, the check-in clerk
direction of his superiors and was on duty, to approach the counter. Fojas
unaware that his acts constituted a wrote something on the tickets which
crime, he may not be held criminally Gonzales later read as late check-in 7:05.
liable for an act done for and in behalf of When Gonzales turn came, Fojas gave
his employer. him the tickets of private respondents
Judy, Jane and Gian and told him to
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. vs. COURT proceed to the cashier to make
OF APPEALS, JUDY AMOR, JANE arrangements. Salvador then went to
GAMIL, minors GIAN CARLO AMOR Atty. Amor and told him about the
represented by ATTY. OWEN AMOR, situation. Atty. Amor pleaded with Fojas,
and CARLO BENITEZ represented by pointing out that it is only 6:45 a.m., but
JOSEPHINE BENITEZ the latter did not even look at him or
G.R. No. 127473 utter any word. Atty. Amor then tried to
December 8, 2003 plead with Delfin Canonizado and George
Carranza, employees of petitioner, but
EVIDENCE; APPEALS still to no avail. Private respondents were
not able to board said flight. The plane
FACTS: Private respondents Judy Amor, left at 7:30 a.m., twenty minutes behind
Jane Gamil, minor Gian Carlo Amor, the original schedule.
represented by his father, Atty. Owen
Amor, and, minor Carlo Benitez, Private respondents then went to the Bus
represented by his mother, Josephine terminals hoping to catch a ride

for Manila. Finding none, they went back rule is that only questions of law may be
to the airport and tried to catch an raised by the parties and passed upon by
afternoon flight. Unfortunately, the 2:30 this Court. Factual findings of the
p.m. flight, PR 278, was cancelled due to appellate court are generally binding on
aircraft situation. Private respondents us especially when in complete accord
were told to wait for the 5:30 p.m. flight, with the findings of the trial court. This is
PR 180. They checked-in their bags and because it is not our function to analyze
were told to hand in their tickets. Later, a or weigh the evidence all over again.
PAL employee at the check-in counter However, this general rule admits of
called out the name of private exceptions, to wit:
respondent minor Carlo Benitez. Plaintiff
Judy approached the counter and was (a) where there is grave abuse of
told by the PAL personnel that they discretion; (b) when the finding is
cannot be accommodated. Fojas who was grounded entirely on speculations,
also at the counter then removed the surmises or conjectures; (c) when
boarding passes inserted in private the inference made is manifestly
respondents tickets as well as the tags mistaken, absurd or impossible; (d)
from their luggages. when the judgment of the Court of
Appeals was based on a
After trial, the RTC rendered judgment in misapprehension of facts; (e) when
favor of private respondents and ordered the factual findings are conflicting;
petitioner to reimburse private (f) when the Court of Appeals, in
respondents the purchase price of the making its findings, went beyond
four (4) plane tickets plus damages, the issues of the case and the
attorneys fees and cost of the suit. On same are contrary to the
appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the RTCs admissions of both appellant and
decision. The motion for reconsideration appellee; (g) when the Court of
was subsequently denied by the Appeals manifestly overlooked
appellate court. certain relevant facts not disputed
by the parties and which, if
ISSUE: WHETHER THE CA WAS CORRECT properly considered, would justify a
IN UPHOLDING THE RTCS DECISION IN different conclusion; and, (h) where
FAVOR OF RESPONDENTS? the findings of fact of the Court of
Appeals are contrary to those of
HELD: Yes. the trial court, or are mere
conclusions without citation of
Evidently, in resolving the two issues specific evidence, or where the
raised in the present petition, it is facts set forth by the petitioner are
inevitable and most crucial that we first not disputed by the respondent, or
determine the question whether or not where the findings of fact of the
the CA erred in upholding the RTC ruling Court of Appeals are premised on
that private respondents were late in the absence of evidence and are
checking-in. Both issues call for a review contradicted by the evidence on
of the factual findings of the lower record.
courts.
Petitioner invokes exception (b).
In petitions for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the general

As to the first issue: Whether or not
private respondents checked-in on time
for PR 178. The determination of this RUBEN AUGUSTO AND ATTY. NOEL D.
issue is necessary because it is expressly ARCHIVAL, PETITIONERS, . HON.
stipulated in the airline tickets issued to JUDGE TEODORO K. RISOS,
private respondents that PAL will PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL
consider the reserved seat cancelled if COURT, BRANCH 27, LAPU- LAPU
the passenger fails to check-in at least CITY, CLEOFE OMOLON,
thirty minutes before the published RESPONDENTS.
departure time.
G.R. NO. 131794. DECEMBER 10,
After a careful review of the records, we 2003.
find no reason to disturb the affirmance
by the CA of the findings of the trial court FACTS: Felisa Augusto and her siblings,
that the private respondents have Jose Augusto, Magdalena Augusto and
checked-in on time; that they reached Alfonso Augusto, all married, were the
the airport at 6:20 a.m., based on the co- owners of a parcel of land located in
testimonies of private respondent Judy Barrio Mactan, Opon, Cebu. The lot was
Amor, and witnesses Salvador Gonzales sold to Guillermo Omolon for P200.00.
and Atty. Owen Amor who were Guillermo Omolon and his wife, Cleofe
consistent in their declarations on the Omolon. In the meantime, the property
witness stand and corroborated one was registered in the names of Monico,
anothers statements; and that the Felisa, Jose, Filomeno, Teofilo and
testimony of petitioners lone witness, Sinfroso, all surnamed Augusto, under
Lloyd Fojas is not sufficient to overcome Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. RO-
private respondents evidence. 3560.
It is a well-entrenched principle that Guillermo Omolon died intestate and was

absent any showing of grave abuse of survived by Cleofe Omolon.
discretion or any palpable error in its
findings, this Court will not question the Sometime in July 1995, Cleofe Omolon
probative weight accorded by the lower filed a petition for the reconstitution of
courts to the various evidence presented the OCT before the RTC of Lapu-Lapu
by the parties. As we explained City, which grants the petition and thus
in Superlines Transportation Co. Inc., vs. directs the Register of Deeds of Lapu-
ICC Leasing & Financing Corporation Lapu City to reconstitute the Original
Certificate of Title. However, upon
The Court is not tasked to calibrate presentation of the aforesaid order to the
and assess the probative weight of Office of the Register of Deeds of Lapu-
evidence adduced by the parties Lapu City, Cleofe was informed that the
during trial all over againSo long owners copy had already been issued to
as the findings of facts of the Court Ruben Augusto, pursuant to an Order
of Appeals are consistent with or issued by the court dated August 23,
are not palpably contrary to the 1996, and that based on the record, the
evidence on record, this Court shall same was in the possession of Atty. Noel
decline to embark on a review on Archival.
the probative weight of the
evidence of the parties. Hence, on May 14, 1997, Cleofe filed a

petition before the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City, On November 26, 1997, the respondents
alleging that as lawful co-owner and filed a notice of appeal from the said
possessor of Lot No. 4429, she had every order to the Court of Appeals. On
right to have and hold the owners December 5, 1997, the RTC issued an
duplicate of the said OCT. She prayed order denying due course therefor, on its
that after due proceedings, the perception that the orders subject
respondents Ruben Augusto and Atty. thereof were interlocutory; hence, not
Noel Archival be ordered to surrender the appealable.
owners copy of the said title.
The respondents, now the petitioners,
In their Comment on the petition, therein filed the instant petition alleging that the
respondents Ruben Augusto and Atty. public respondent committed a grave
Noel Archival alleged, inter alia, that the abuse of discretion amounting to excess
Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Felisa, or lack of jurisdiction when it issued the
Magdalena, Alfonso and Jose, all assailed orders, and that there is no
surnamed Augusto, was falsified and appeal nor any plain, speedy and
fictitious, and, thus, null and void. In the adequate remedy in the ordinary course
interim, Cleofe had her adverse claim of law available to them.
annotated at the dorsal portion of the
title in the Office of the Register of Deeds The petitioners argue that contrary to the
of Lapu-Lapu City.On October 22, 1997, ruling of the public respondent, its
the RTC issued an order directing October 22, 1997 Order was final and
Atty. Noel Archival to produce the appealable, as the same disposed of the
owners copy of OCT No. 3560 to allow case. In her comment on the petition, the
the annotation of Cleofes interest, upon private respondent averred that the
which the owners duplicate copy of the October 22, 1997 Order of the public
title may thereafter be returned. respondent was merely interlocutory as it
The trial court declared that, based on did not fully dispose of the case and had
the pleadings of the parties, the issue of reserved the further determination of
ownership over the property had been other questions.
raised, a matter which the court, sitting
as a cadastral court, could not pass upon. ISSUE: Whether or not the order of the
public respondent is a final order hence
The trial court further ruled that pending appealable.
resolution of the issue of ownership over
the property in an appropriate HELD: NO. Section 1, Rule 41 of the
proceeding therefor, there was a need for Rules or Court provides that an appeal
the annotation of the petitioners interest may be taken only from a final order, and
over the property. The respondents not from an interlocutory one. A final
therein filed a Motion for a Partial order is one which disposes of the whole
Reconsideration of the Order alleging subject matter or terminates a particular
that Cleofes interest over the property proceeding or action, leaving nothing to
had been sufficiently protected by the be done but to enforce by execution what
annotation of her adverse claim. has been determined. An order or
However, on November 14, 1997, the judgment is deemed final if it finally
court issued an Order denying the motion disposes of, adjudicates, or determines
of the respondents therein. the rights, or some right or rights of the
parties, either on the entire controversy

or on some definite and separate branch that said vendors executed a contract of
thereof, and concludes them until it is sale dated April 10, 1990 in her favor;
reversed or set aside. Where no issue is that Ignacio Rubio and the heirs of Luz
left for future consideration, except the Baloloy received a down payment or
fact of compliance with the terms of the earnest money in the amount of
order, such order is final and appealable. P102,169.86 and P450,000, respectively;
In contrast, an order is interlocutory if it that it was agreed in the contract of sale
does not finally dispose of the case. that the vendors would secure
certificates of title covering their
In this case, the order of the public respective hereditary shares; that the
respondent directing the petitioners to balance of the purchase price would be
produce the owners copy of OCT No. paid to each heir upon presentation of
3560 in the Office of the Register of their individual certificate[s] of title; that
Deeds for the annotation of the private Ignacio Rubio refused to receive the
respondents interest over the property is other half of the down payment which is
merely interlocutory and not final; hence, P[100,000]; that Ignacio Rubio refused
not appealable by means of a writ of and still refuses to deliver to Lim the
error. The public respondent had not fully certificates of title covering his share on
disposed of the case as it had not yet the two lots; that with respect to the
ruled on whether to grant the private heirs of Luz Baloloy, they also refused
respondents prayer for the surrender of and still refuse to perform the delivery of
the owners copy of OCT No. 3560. As the two certificates of title covering their
gleaned from the order of the respondent share in the disputed lots; that Lim was
judge, he believed that he had no and is ready and willing to pay Ignacio
jurisdiction to delve into and resolve the Rubio and the heirs of Luz Baloloy upon
issue of ownership over the property and presentation of their individual
was disposed to dismiss the petition. certificates of title, free from whatever
lien and encumbrance;
CORAZON ESCUETA VS. RUFINA LIM As to petitioner Corazon Escueta, in spite

G.R. No. 137162 January 24, 2007 of her knowledge that the disputed lots
(TIME FOR FILING PETITION; have already been sold by Ignacio Rubio
CONTENTS AND VERIFICATION Sec. 3 to respondent, it is alleged that a
Rule 38) simulated deed of sale involving said lots
was effected by Ignacio Rubio in her
Facts: Respondent Rufina Lim filed an favor; and that the simulated deed of
action to remove cloud on, or quiet title sale by Rubio to Escueta has raised
to, real property, with preliminary doubts and clouds over respondents
injunction and issuance of [a hold- (Lim) title.
departure order] from the Philippines
against Ignacio E. Rubio. Respondent Now the Defense of Baloloys, Rubio
amended her complaint to include and Escueta . . .
specific performance and damages.
As per heirs of Luz Baloloy, Lim has no
In her amended complaint, Lim averred cause of action, because the subject
inter alia that she bought the hereditary contract of sale has no more force and
shares (consisting of 10 lots) of Ignacio effect as far as the Baloloys are
Rubio and the heirs of Luz Baloloy, concerned, since they have withdrawn
Alejandrino, Bayani, and other co-heirs;
their offer to sell for the reason that
respondent failed to pay the balance of On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial
the purchase price as orally promised on courts order and partial decision,
or before May 1, 1990. but reversed the later decision.
Rubio and Escueta's defense is that Lim The Decision dismissing [respondents,
has no cause of Action because Rubio Lim] complaint is REVERSED and SET
has not entered into a contract of sale ASIDE and a new one is entered.
with the latter. That the P100,000 Accordingly;
respondent (Lim) claimed Rubio received a. the validity of the subject contract of
as down payment for the lots is a simple sale in favor of [respondent] is upheld.
transaction by way of a loan with Lim. b. Rubio is directed to execute a Deed of
Absolute Sale conditioned upon the
However, the Baloloys failed to payment of the balance of the purchase
appear at the pre-trial. Upon motion price by [respondent] within 30 days
of respondent (Lim), the trial court from the receipt of the entry of judgment
declared the Baloloys in default. Baloloys of this Decision.
then filed a motion to lift the order c. the contracts of sale between Rubio
declaring them in default, which was and Escueta involving Rubios share in
denied by the trial court in an order the disputed properties is declared NULL
dated November 27, 1991. Consequently, and VOID.
respondent was allowed to adduce d. Rubio and Escueta are ordered to pay
evidence ex parte. Thereafter, the trial jointly and severally the [respondent] the
court rendered a partial decision dated amount ofP[20,000] as moral damages
July 23, 1993 against the Baloloys. and P[20,000] as attorneys fees.
3. the appeal of Rubio and Escueta on
The Baloloys filed a petition for relief the denial of their counterclaim is
from judgment and order dated July 4, DISMISSED.
1994 and supplemental petition dated
July 7, 1994. This was denied by the trial Petitioners Motion for
court in an order dated September 16, Reconsideration of the CA Decision
1994. Hence, appeal to the Court of was denied. Hence, this petition.
Appeals was taken challenging the order
denying the petition for relief. Take Note of Petitioner's ff.
Argument(s):
Trial on the merits ensued between
respondent and Rubio and Escueta. After 1. CA did not consider the circumstances
trial, the trial court rendered its assailed surrounding petitioners failure to appear
Decision dismissing the complaint and at the pre-trial and to file the petition for
amended complaint againts Petitioners relief on time. As to the failure to appear
Escueta, Rubio and the Register of at the pre-trial, there was fraud, accident
Deeds. The counterclaim of petitioners is and/or excusable neglect, because
also dismissed. However, [petitioner] petitioner Bayani was in the United
Rubio is ordered to return to the States. There was no service of the
[respondent],Lim, the amount of notice of pre-trial or order. Neither did
P102,169.80, with interest at the rate of the former counsel of record inform him.
six percent (6%) per annum from April Consequently, the order declaring him in
10, [1990] until the same is fully paid.

default is void, and all subsequent Section 3 of Rule 38 of the Rules of
proceedings, orders, or decision are void. Court states:
SEC. 3. Time for filing petition;
2. Petitioner Alejandrino was not clothed contents and verification. A petition
with a power of attorney to appear on provided for in either of the preceding
behalf of Bayani at the pre-trial sections of this Rule must be verified,
conference. filed within sixty (60) days after the
petitioner learns of the judgment, final
3. The amount encashed by Rubio order, or other proceeding to be set
represented not the down payment, but aside, and not more than six (6) months
the payment of respondents debt. His after such judgment or final order was
acceptance and encashment of the check entered, or such proceeding was taken;
was not a ratification of the contract of and must be accompanied with affidavits
sale. showing the fraud, accident, mistake, or
excusable negligence relied upon, and
the facts constituting the petitioners
ISSUE: WON BAYANI BALOLOY WAS good and substantial cause of action or
PROPERLY DECLARED IN DEFAULT FOR defense, as the case may be.
LACK OF REPRESENTATION.
There is no reason for the Baloloys to
HELD:For lack of representation, ignore the effects of the above-cited rule.
Bayani Baloloy was properly "The 60-day period is reckoned from the
declared in default. time the party acquired knowledge of the
order, judgment or proceedings and not
Pre-trial is mandatory. The notices of pre- from the date he actually read the
trial had been sent to both the Baloloys same."
and their former counsel of record. Being
served with notice, he is "charged with The Baloloys, apparently in an attempt to
the duty of notifying the party cure the lapse of the aforesaid
represented by him." He must "see to it reglementary period to file a petition for
that his client receives such notice and relief from judgment, included in its
attends the pre-trial." What the Baloloys petition the two Orders dated May 6,
and their former counsel have alleged 1994 and June 29, 1994. The first Order
instead in their Motion to Lift Order of As denied Baloloys motion to fix the period
In Default dated December 11, 1991 is within which plaintiffs-appellants pay the
the belated receipt of Bayani Baloloys balance of the purchase price. The
special power of attorney in favor of their second Order refers to the grant of
former counsel, not that they have not partial execution, i.e. on the aspect of
received the notice or been informed of damages. These Orders are only
the scheduled pre-trial. Not having raised consequences of the partial decision
the ground of lack of a special power of subject of the petition for relief, and thus,
attorney in their motion, they are now cannot be considered in the
deemed to have waived it. Certainly, determination of the reglementary period
they cannot raise it at this late stage of within which to file the said petition for
the proceedings. relief.
(Legal Basis . . .) Furthermore, no fraud, accident, mistake,

or excusable negligence exists in order

that the petition for relief may be Springfield Development Corporation,
granted. There is no proof of extrinsic Inc. bought certain parcels of land
fraud that "prevents a party from having including that of Petra and developed
a trial or from presenting all of his case said properties into a subdivision project
to the court" or an "accident which called Mega Heights Subdivision.
ordinary prudence could not have
guarded against, and by reason of which On May 4, 1990, the Department of
the party applying has probably been Agrarian Reform (DAR), through its
impaired in his rights." There is also no Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, issued
proof of either a "mistake of law or an a Notice of Coverage, placing the
excusable negligence "caused by failure property under the coverage of Republic
to receive notice of the trial that it would Act (R.A.) No. 6657 or the Comprehensive
not be necessary for him to take an Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. The heirs
active part in the case by relying on of Petra opposed DAR. Then on August
another person to attend to the case for 27, 1991, DARAB Provincial Adjudicator
him, when such other person was rendered a decision declaring the nature
chargeable with that duty, or by other of the property as residential and not
circumstances not involving fault of the suitable for agriculture. The Regional
moving party." Director filed a notice of appeal, which
the Provincial Adjudicator disallowed for
Petition Denied. being pro forma and frivolous. The
decision became final and executory and
Springfield proceeded to develop the
property.
The DAR Regional Director then filed a

petition for relief from judgment of the
DARAB Decision.
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT On October 5, 1995, the DARAB granted

CORPORATION, INC. and HEIRS OF the petition and gave due course to the
PETRA CAPISTRANO PIIT, Petitioners, Notice of Coverage. It also directed the
vs. HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE Municipal Agrarian Reform Office to
OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF proceed with the documentation,
MISAMIS ORIENTAL, BRANCH 40, acquisition, and distribution of the
CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, DEPARTMENT property to the true and lawful
OF AGRARIAN REFORM beneficiaries.
ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB)
G.R. NO. 142628 February 6, 2007 The DARAB also issued an Order dated
(Rule 45 -The principal issue May 22, 1997, ordering the heirs of Piit
presented for resolution is whether and Springfield to pay the farmer-
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has beneficiaries the amount of Twelve
jurisdiction to annul final judgment Million, Three Hundred Forty Thousand,
of the Department of Agrarian Eight Hundred Pesos (P12,340,800.00),
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)) corresponding to the value of the
property since the property has already
FACTS: Petra Capistrano Piit previously been developed into a subdivision.
owned a lot in Cagayan de Oro City.

That's why on On June 13, 1997, filed with the RTC on June 13, 1997,
Springfield and the heirs of Piit before the advent of the 1997 Rules of
(petitioners) filed with the RTC of Civil Procedure, which took effect on July
Cagayan de Oro City, a petition for 1, 1997. Thus, the applicable law is B.P.
annulment of the DARAB Decision dated Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization
October 5, 1995 and all its subsequent Act of 1980, enacted on August 10,
proceedings. Petitioners contend that the 1981.)
DARAB decision was rendered without
affording petitioners any notice and DARAB is a quasi-judicial body created by
hearing. Executive Order Nos. 229 and 129-A. R.A.
No. 6657 delineated its adjudicatory
(The sad part) On motion filed by the powers and functions. The DARAB
farmer-beneficiaries, the RTC issued an Revised Rules of Procedure adopted on
Order dated June 25, 1997, dismissing December 26, 198827specifically
the case for lack of jurisdiction. provides for the manner of judicial review
of its decisions, orders, rulings, or
Petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals awards.
(CA) a special civil action for certiorari,
mandamus, and prohibition with prayer Rule XIV, Section 1 states:
for the issuance of writ of preliminary SECTION 1. Certiorari to the Court of
injunction and/or temporary restraining Appeals. Any decision, order, award or
order. Petitioners alleged that the RTC ruling by the Board or its Adjudicators on
committed grave abuse of discretion any agrarian dispute or on any matter
when it ruled that the annulment of pertaining to the application,
judgment filed before it is actually an implementation, enforcement or
action for certiorari in a different color. interpretation of agrarian reform laws or
According to petitioners, what it sought rules and regulations promulgated
before the RTC is an annulment of the thereunder, may be brought within
DARAB Decision and not certiorari, as the fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy
DARAB Decision is void ab initio for thereof, to the Court of Appeals by
having been rendered without due certiorari, except as provided in the next
process of law. succeeding section. Notwithstanding an
appeal to the Court of Appeals the
CA dismissed the petition for lack of decision of the Board or Adjudicator
merit, ruling that the RTC does not have appealed from, shall be immediately
jurisdiction to annul the DARAB Decision executory.
because it is a co-equal body.
Further, the prevailing 1997 Rules of Civil
ISSUE: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction Procedure, as amended, expressly
to annul a final judgment of the DARAB. provides for an appeal from the DARAB
decisions to the CA.
HELD:B.P. Blg. 129 does not
specifically provide for any power of The rule is that where legislation
the RTC to annul judgments of quasi- provides for an appeal from decisions of
judicial bodies. certain administrative bodies to the CA, it
means that such bodies are co-equal with
(Note must be made that the petition for the RTC, in terms of rank and stature,
annulment of the DARAB decision was

and logically, beyond the control of the aforementioned parcel of
latter. land, and for the
disposition of the
Given that DARAB decisions are proceeds thereof in
appealable to the CA, the inevitable accordance with law, upon
conclusion is that the DARAB is a co- failure of the respondents
equal body with the RTC and its decisions to fully pay petitioner
are beyond the RTC's control. The CA was within the period set by
therefore correct in sustaining the RTC's law the sums set forth in
dismissal of the petition for annulment of this complaint.
the DARAB Decision dated October 5,
1995, as the RTC does not have any
jurisdiction to entertain the same. Respondents filed a Motion to Extend
Period to Answer but despite the
extension, respondents failed to file any
LETICIA DIONA, represented by her responsive pleadings. Thus, upon motion
Attorney-in-Fact, MARCELINA DIONA, of the petitioner, the RTC declared them
vs. ROMEO A. BALANGUE, SONNY A. in default and allowed petitioner to
BALANGUE, REYNALDO A. present her evidence ex parte. The RTC
BALANGUE, and ESTEBAN A. granted plaintiffs motion and rendered a
BALANGUE, JR. decision ordering the respondents to pay
the sum of FORTY FIVE THOUSAND
G.R. No. 173559, January 7, 2013 (P45,000.00) PESOS, representing the
unpaid principal loan obligation plus
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT interest at 5% per monthreckoned
from March 2, 1991, until the same is
FACTS:Respondents obtained a loan of fully paid.
P45,000.00 from petitioner secured by a
Real Estate Mortgageover their 202- Respondents filed a Motion to Set Aside
square meter property located in Judgment claiming that not all of them
Valenzuela. When the debt became due, were duly served with summons.
respondents failed to pay According them, they had no knowledge
notwithstanding demand. Thus, of the case because their co-respondent
petitioner filed with the RTC a Complaint Sonny did not inform them about it.
praying, among others, that respondents
be ordered: Meanwhile, Petitioner moved for the
public auction of the mortgaged
(a) To pay petitioner the property, which the RTC granted. In the
principal obligation of auction sale petitioner was the only
P45,000.00, with interest bidder and thus a Certificate of Sale was
thereon at the rate of 12% issued in her favor.
per annum, from 02 March
1991 until the full Respondents then filed a Motion to
obligation is paid. Correct/Amend Judgment and To Set
XXXX Aside Execution Sale claiming that the
(c) To issue a decree of parties did not agree in writing on any
foreclosure for the sale at rate of interest and that petitioner merely
public auction of the sought for a 12% per annum interest in

her Complaint. Surprisingly, the RTC Petitioner sought reconsideration, which
awarded 5% monthly interest (or 60% was denied by the CA in its June 26, 2006
per annum) from March 2, 1991 until full Resolution,
payment. Resultantly, their indebtedness
inclusive of the exorbitant interest from
March 2, 1991 to May 22, 2001 ballooned ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE CA
from P124,400.00 to P652,000.00. ERRED IN ORDERING THE ANNULMENT
OF JUDGMENT IN SO FAR AS THE
The RTC granted respondents motion INTEREST RATE OF THE OBLIGATION IS
and accordingly modified the interest CONCERNED
rate awarded from 5% monthly to 12%
per annum.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court held that
Displeased with the RTCs Order, the award of 5% monthly interest
petitioner elevated the matter to the CA violated the right of the respondents to
via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 due process and, hence, the same may
of the Rules of Court. The CA rendered a be set aside in a Petition for Annulment
Decision declaring that the RTC exceeded of Judgment filed under Rule 47 of the
its jurisdiction in awarding the 5% Rules of Court.
monthly interest but at the same time
pronouncing that the RTC gravely abused The Supreme Court ruled that a Petition
its discretion in subsequently reducing for Annulment of Judgment under Rule 47
the rate of interest to 12% per annum. of the Rules of Court is a remedy granted
only under exceptional circumstances
Respondents then filed with the same where a party, without fault on his part,
court a Petition for Annulment of has failed to avail of the ordinary
Judgment and Execution Sale with remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for
Damages.They contended that the relief or other appropriate remedies. Said
portion of the RTC Decision granting rule explicitly provides that it is not
petitioner 5% monthly interest rate is in available as a substitute for a remedy
gross violation of Section 3(d) of Rule 9 of which was lost due to the partys own
the Rules of Court and of their right to neglect in promptly availing of the same.
due process. According to respondents, "The underlying reason is traceable to
the loan did not carry any interest as it the notion that annulling final judgments
was the verbal agreement of the parties goes against the grain of finality of
that in lieu thereof petitioners family can judgment. Litigation must end and
continue occupying respondents terminate sometime and somewhere,
residential building located in Marulas, and it is essential to an effective
Valenzuela for free until said loan is fully administration of justice that once a
paid. judgment has become final, the issue or
cause involved therein should be laid to
The CA granted respondents motion for rest."
reconsideration and order the annulment
of the judgement insofar as it awarded While under Section 2, Rule 47 of the
5% monthly interest in favor of Rules of Court a Petition for Annulment of
petitioner; Judgment may be based only on the
grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction, jurisprudence recognizes

lack of due process as additional ground that respondents borrowed from her "the
to annul a judgment.In Arcelona v. Court sum of FORTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
of Appeals, this Court declared that a (P45,000.00), with interest thereon at the
final and executory judgment may still be rate of 12% per annum" and sought
set aside if, upon mere inspection payment thereof. She did not allege or
thereof, its patent nullity can be shown pray for the disputed 5% monthly
for having been issued without interest. Neither did she present
jurisdiction or for lack of due process of evidence nor testified thereon. Clearly,
law. the RTCs award of 5% monthly interest
or 60% per annum lacks basis and
It also ruled that the grant of 5% monthly disregards due process. It violated the
interest to the petitioner is way beyond due process requirement because
the 12% per annum interest sought in respondents were not informed of the
the Complaint and smacks of violation of possibility that the RTC may award 5%
due process. monthly interest. They were deprived of
reasonable opportunity to refute and
It is settled that courts cannot grant a present controverting evidence as they
relief not prayed for in the pleadings or in were made to believe that the
excess of what is being sought by the complainant petitioner was seeking for
party. They cannot also grant a relief what she merely stated in her Complaint.
without first ascertaining the evidence
presented in support thereof. Due Neither can the grant of the 5% monthly
process considerations require that interest be considered subsumed by
judgments must conform to and be petitioners general prayer for "other
supported by the pleadings and evidence reliefs and remedies just and equitable
presented in court. In Development Bank under the premises x x x." To repeat, the
of the Philippines v. Teston, this Court courts grant of relief is limited only to
expounded that: Due process what has been prayed for in the
considerations justify this requirement. It Complaint or related thereto, supported
is improper to enter an order which by evidence, and covered by the partys
exceeds the scope of relief sought by the cause of action. Besides, even assuming
pleadings, absent notice which affords that the awarded 5% monthly or 60% per
the opposing party an opportunity to be annum interest was properly alleged and
heard with respect to the proposed relief. proven during trial, the same remains
The fundamental purpose of the unconscionably excessive and ought to
requirement that allegations of a be equitably reduced in accordance with
complaint must provide the measure of applicable jurisprudence.
recovery is to prevent surprise to the
defendant.
In the case at bench, the award of 5%

monthly interest rate is not supported
both by the allegations in the pleadings
and the evidence on record. The Real
Estate Mortgage executed by the parties
does not include any provision on NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY vs.
interest. When petitioner filed her JOSE EVANGELISTA
Complaint before the RTC, she alleged G.R. No. 140945. May 16, 2005

an Affidavit of Adverse Claim of petitioner
ANNULMENT OF JUDGEMENT NHA.
FACTS: Sometime in 1968, a real Petitioner then filed a motion for leave to
property (915.50sqm) located in Quezon file supplemental complaint in Civil Case
City, was originally awarded by the No. Q-91-10071, seeking to include
Peoples Homesite and Housing respondent Evangelista, Northern Star
Corporation (petitioners predecessor) to Agri-Business Corporation and BPI
a certain Adela Salindon. After the death Agricultural Development Bank as
of Salindon, it was transferred to Arsenio defendants (subsequent purchasers). The
Florendo, Jr., Milagros Florendo, Beatriz trial court, however, denied the motion.
Florendo and Eloisa Florendo- Thus, petitioner, filed before the Regional
Kulphongpatana through an extrajudicial Trial Court of Quezon City a complaint for
settlement executed by the heirs of Annulment of Deed of Assignment, Deed
Salindon. However, the award in favor of of Absolute Sale, Real Estate Mortgage,
Salindon was nullified and set aside in a Cancellation of TCT Nos. 122944 and
decision in G.R. No. L-60544, entitled 126639, and Damages, against Sarte,
Arsenio Florendo, Jr., et al. vs. Hon. respondent Evangelista, Northern Star
Perpetuo D. Coloma, for having been Agri-Business Corporation, BPI
issued in excess of jurisdiction and with Agricultural Development Bank and the
grave abuse of discretion, and petitioner Register of Deeds of Quezon City. But the
was declared the owner of the property. trial court dismissed without prejudice
said case on October 23, 1995, on the
ground of the pendency of Civil Case No.
Despite said decision, the property was Q-91-10071.
auctioned off by the Quezon City
Treasurers Office for unpaid real property The trial court, in Civil Case No. Q-91-
taxes by the Florendos. The highest 10071, rendered its decision in favor of
bidder was Luisito Sarte. Sarte filed a petitioner, stating that:
petition for issuance of title and 3. Any transfers, assignment, sale or
confirmation of sale, which was granted mortgage of whatever nature of the
by the RTC QC. Consequently, Transfer parcel of land subject of this case
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 28182 was made by defendant Luisito Sarte or
issued in the name of Sarte, who divided his/her agents or assigns before or
the property into Lot 1-A (TCT No during the pendency of the instant
108070), and Lot 1-B. case are hereby declared null and
It was in 1991 that petitioner filed Civil void, together with any transfer
Case No. Q-91-10071 for recovery of real certificates of title issued in
property with Sarte, the City Treasurer of connection with the aforesaid
Quezon City and the Quezon City transactions by the Register of
Register of Deeds, as defendants. While Deeds of Quezon City who is likewise
the case was pending, Sarte executed in ordered to cancel or cause the
favor of respondent Jose Evangelista, a cancellation of such TCTs;
Deed of Assignment covering Lot 1-A.TCT
No. 108070 was cancelled and TCT No. Respondent then filed with the CA a
122944 was issued in the name of petition for annulment of the trial courts
Evangelista. Subsequently, the Register judgment, particularly paragraph 3 of the
of Deeds annotated on TCT No. 122944 dispositive portion, referring to the nullity
of any transfer, assignment, sale or matter of the claim, and in either case,
mortgage made by Sarte. In his petition, the judgment or final order and
respondent alleged extrinsic fraud as resolution are void.A trial court acquires
ground. According to respondent, since jurisdiction over the person of the
he was not a party to Civil Case No. Q-91- defendant either by his voluntary
10071, he was prevented from appearance in court and his submission
ventilating his cause, right or interest to its authority or by service of summons.
over the property, and the judgment was
not binding on him, as the trial court did In this case, it is undisputed that
not acquire jurisdiction over his person. respondent was never made a party to
Civil Case No. Q-91-10071. It is basic that
The CA granted the petition and declared no man shall be affected by any
null and void paragraph 3 of the proceeding to which he is a stranger, and
dispositive portion of the trial courts strangers to a case are not bound by
decision insofar as petitioners title to the judgment rendered by the court.
property is concerned.The CA found that Respondent is adversely affected by such
respondent was not a party to Civil Case judgment, as he was the subsequent
No. Q-91-10071 and the trial court did purchaser of the subject property from
not acquire any jurisdiction over his Sarte, and title was already transferred to
person. The CA also ruled that the him. It will be the height of inequity to
judgment violated respondents right allow respondents title to be nullified
against deprivation of the property without being given the opportunity to
without due process of law. Petitioner present any evidence in support of his
filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but ostensible ownership of the property.
the same was denied by the CA. Hence, Much more, it is tantamount to a
this Petition. violation of the constitutional guarantee
that no person shall be deprived of
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE CA property without due process of
ERRED IN ANNULLING PARAGRAPH 3 OF law.Clearly, the trial courts judgment is
THE TRIAL COURTS DECISION ON void insofar as paragraph 3 of its
GROUNDS OF LACK OF JURISDICTION dispositive portion is concerned.
AND LACK OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW
Petitioner further argues that it should
HELD: No. The Supreme Court held that not bear the consequence of the trial
Annulment of judgment is a recourse courts denial of its motion to include
equitable in character, allowed only in respondent as defendant in Civil Case No.
exceptional cases as where there is no Q-91-10071. True, it was not petitioners
available or other adequate fault that respondent was not made a
remedy.Jurisprudence and Section 2, Rule party to the case. But likewise, it was not
47 of the Rules of Court lay down the respondents fault that he was not given
grounds upon which an action for the opportunity to present his side of the
annulment of judgment may be brought, story. Whatever prompted the trial court
i.e., (1) extrinsic fraud, and (2) lack of to deny petitioners motion to include
jurisdiction or denial of due process. respondent as defendant is not for the
Court to reason why. Petitioner could
have brought the trial courts denial to
Lack of jurisdiction refers to either lack of the CA on certiorari but it did not.
jurisdiction over the person of the Instead, it filed Civil Case No. Q-95-23940
defending party or over the subject for Annulment of Deed of Assignment,
Deed of Absolute Sale, Real Estate of litis pendentia. Be that as it may, the
Mortgage, Cancellation of TCT Nos. undeniable fact remains -- respondent is
122944 and 126639, and Damages, not a party to Civil Case No. Q-91-10071,
against herein respondent Sarte and and paragraph 3, or any portion of the
others. Unfortunately for petitioner, this trial courts judgment for that matter,
was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court cannot be binding on him.
of Quezon City (Branch 82) on the ground


Brondial Rule 40-56 Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brondial Rule 40-56 Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 | REMEDIAL LAW REVIEW 1: CIVIL PROCEDURE

CECILIA B. ESTINOZO vs. COURT OF part-time secretary at FCR Recruitment

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

On July 14, 2000, LBP filed before this

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

It is a well-entrenched principle that Guillermo Omolon died intestate and was

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

CORAZON ESCUETA VS. RUFINA LIM As to petitioner Corazon Escueta, in spite

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

(Legal Basis . . .) Furthermore, no fraud, accident, mistake,

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

The DAR Regional Director then filed a

SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT On October 5, 1995, the DARAB granted

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

In the case at bench, the award of 5%

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

AGUIRRE, ALMIRANTE, BAARES, CABREROS, FLORES, JABINES, MORES, ORTEGA, SALGADO,

You might also like