Case Digest (G.R. No. 152898)
Facts:
The case involves Sofia Canton, who is deceased and represented by co-administrators of her estate, namely Macaraig Canton, Jr., Domingo L. Antigua, Rogelio Uy, and Juan V. Bolo (collectively referred to as petitioners), against the City of Cebu and/or the Metro Cebu Development Project (respondents). The events leading to the case began on June 24, 1998, when employees of the Metro Cebu Development Project (MCDP), with assistance from the Squatters Prevention Encroachment Elimination Division (SPEED) of the Office of the City Mayor of Cebu City, removed a barbed wire fence from a disputed area. They justified this action by claiming that the fence was an illegal construction due to the absence of a necessary permit. The petitioners subsequently filed a case for forcible entry, designated as Civil Case No. 926, against MCDP and the City of Cebu in the Municipal Trial Court of Talisay, Cebu. They contended that the respondents unlawfully entered their property and demolished t...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 152898)
Facts:
Background of the Dispute
- Employees of the Metro Cebu Development Project (MCDP) identified the disputed area as part of the South Cebu Reclamation Project.
- On June 24, 1998, MCDP, with the assistance of the Squatters Prevention Encroachment Elimination Division (SPEED) of the Office of the City Mayor of Cebu City, removed a barbed wire fence from the disputed area, claiming it was an "illegal construction for lack of necessary permit."
Petitioners' Claim
- Petitioners, represented by co-administrators of Sofia Canton's estate, filed a case for forcible entry (Civil Case No. 926) against MCDP and the City of Cebu (respondents) before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Talisay, Cebu.
- Petitioners alleged that respondents unlawfully entered their property in San Roque, Talisay, Cebu, and demolished their fence. They claimed ownership of the disputed area, supported by tax declarations.
Respondents' Defense
- Respondents argued that the disputed area is foreshore land, reclaimed and developed as part of the South Cebu Reclamation Project. They contended that petitioners had no right of ownership or possession over the area.
MTC Ruling
- The MTC ruled in favor of petitioners, stating that the issue was prior physical possession, not ownership. The court ordered respondents to vacate the property, surrender possession to petitioners, and pay attorney’s fees.
RTC Ruling
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MTC decision, declaring the disputed area as foreshore land, part of the public domain, and not subject to private ownership. The RTC dismissed the complaint, stating that the removal of the fence was not an act of forcible entry.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals
- Petitioners received the RTC decision on January 7, 2002, and filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA) on January 16, 2002.
- The CA dismissed the petition outright for failure to comply with Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires the attachment of specific pleadings and documents.
Motion for Reconsideration
- Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but failed to submit the required pleadings. They argued that the CA's dismissal was overly harsh and technical.
Issue:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition outright for failure to attach copies of the complaint, answer, position papers, and appeal memoranda, as required under Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA's dismissal. The Court held that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege, and petitioners failed to comply with the procedural requirements under Section 2, Rule 42. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure must be followed to facilitate justice, and non-compliance justifies dismissal.
Ratio:
- Compliance with Procedural Rules: The right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege. Parties must strictly comply with procedural rules, including the submission of required pleadings and documents, to exercise this privilege.
- Duty of the Court of Appeals: The CA has the duty to ensure that petitioners submit sufficient supporting documents to determine the prima facie merit of the petition. Failure to comply with these requirements is a valid ground for dismissal.
- Relaxation of Rules: Procedural rules may only be relaxed to prevent injustice, but petitioners' failure to submit the required documents was not justified. Their refusal to comply with the CA's directive demonstrated a lack of diligence.
- Guiding Precedent: The Court cited Atillo v. Bombay, emphasizing that the CA has the authority to dismiss petitions for non-compliance with procedural requirements, especially when the petitioner fails to provide indispensable documents.
Conclusion:
- The Supreme Court upheld the CA's dismissal of the petition, ruling that petitioners' failure to comply with Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure justified the dismissal. The Court reiterated that procedural rules must be followed to ensure the orderly administration of justice.