Case Digest (G.R. No. 57204)
Facts:
This is Borre et al. v. Court of Appeals, Artermon D. Luna, and Manotok Services, Inc., G.R. No. 57204, March 14, 1988, Supreme Court Third Division, Cortes, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (a long list led by Fortunato Borre) sued private respondent Manotok Services, Inc. on August 29, 1979, seeking recovery of rentals they had paid. They alleged the land they occupied and leased from Manotok was actually public land forming part of the Estero de Sunog-Apo and Estero de Maypajo and therefore could not belong to the company. Manotok moved to dismiss.
On November 11, 1980 the Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the complaint, relying on Presidential Decree No. 1670 (which had declared certain parcels expropriated and recognized the company's ownership). The order was received by petitioners on November 14, 1980. Petitioners moved for reconsideration on December 13, 1980; the court denied it on December 22, 1980 (received January 12, 1981). A second motion filed January 14, 1981, based on a subsequent survey, was denied January 20, 1981 (received January 30, 1981).
On the last day to perfect appeal, January 31, 1981, petitioners filed by registered mail a notice of appeal and a motion for extension to file the record on appeal but did not file the appeal bond until February 2, 1981. The trial court dismissed the appeal for failure to perfect it within the reglementary period. Petitioners sought relief from the Court of Appeals via certiorari, which dismissed their petition in a Decision dated April 22, 1981 and denied reconsideration in a Resolution dated June 17, 1981.
Petitioners then filed this petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court to set aside the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution. They argued their late filing of the appeal bond was due to "excusable negligence" — an honest belief that the...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the dismissal of petitioners' appeal for failure to perfect the appeal within the reglementary period where the appeal bond was filed two days late due to alleged "excusable negligence"?
- Substantive: Was the trial court's dismissal of petitioners' complaint correct on the merits — specifically, are tenants estopped from denying the title of their landlord and thus barred from claiming the leased land is public domain?
- Subsidiary: Could the dismissal be sustained on the basis of Presidential Decree No. 1670 (recognition/expropriation of the parce...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)