Case Digest (G.R. No. 179641)
Facts:
Dolorita C. Beatingo v. Lilia Bu Gasis, G.R. No. 179641, February 09, 2011, Supreme Court Second Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Dolorita Beatingo filed a Complaint for Annulment and Cancellation of Sale, Reconveyance, Delivery of Title and Damages against respondent Lilia Bu Gasis before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 31, docketed as Civil Case No. 00-26171. Petitioner alleged she bought Lot No. 7219 from Flora G. Gasis on May 19, 1998 by notarized Deed of Absolute Sale; she later sought registration (October 18, 1999) but could not produce the owner’s duplicate certificate of title and petitioned for issuance of an owner’s duplicate title. Respondent opposed, claiming she had purchased the same property from Flora on January 27, 1999 and possessed the Original Certificate of Title (OCT).The RTC, after trial, treated the dispute as a double sale and, on December 29, 2005, rendered judgment for the defendant (respondent), dismissing petitioner’s complaint and declaring respondent lawful owner; the RTC relied on Article 1544 of the Civil Code and found respondent had first taken possession and enjoyed the produce while petitioner had not paid the purchase price in full nor taken possession. Petitioner’s Motion for New Trial and Reconsideration was denied by the RTC on April 5, 2006.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA required filing of the Appellant’s Brief (notice dated December 20, 2006; received January 5, 2007). Counsel for petitioner requested a 90-day extension, which the CA granted (Resolution March 9, 2007), expressly stating it as the maximum extension (until May 20, 2007). Instead of filing the brief within that extension, petitioner filed two further motions seeking an additional 60 days; the CA, in a Resolution dated June 27, 2007, denied the motions and dismissed the appeal for failure to file the Appellant’s Brief under Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. A motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA on August 13, 2007.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Co...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the appeal for petitioner’s failure to file the Appellant’s Brief?
- On the merits, did the RTC correctly decide the double sale dispute and declare respondent the lawful owner of the su...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)