Case Digest (G.R. No. 244140)
Facts:
Benson Chua v. Spouses Philip L. Go and Diana G. Go, G.R. No. 244140, February 03, 2021, Supreme Court Third Division, De los Santos, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Benson Chua sought review of the Court of Appeals' Decision dated April 3, 2018 and Resolution dated December 6, 2018 in CA-G.R. CV No. 04930 by a Rule 45 petition.Petitioner alleged that in 1991 he acquired two parcels of land but had the titles placed in the name of his cousin Philip L. Go in trust. When respondents refused to reconvey the titles, petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Trust and Reconveyance on July 12, 2007 (Civil Case No. 6837-L). After respondents presented evidence, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Lapu‑Lapu City, initially dismissed the complaint for lack of merit; the Court of Appeals (CA) on July 30, 2010 reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
On remand the case generated disputes over docket fees. The Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) initially certified payment of P111,157.60 (Aug. 9, 2012), then issued a reassessment of P202,993.00 (Sept. 20, 2012). The OCC explained the discrepancy as a change in assumed zonal valuation; respondents sought rejection of the reassessment and asked that petitioner be ordered to pay the larger amount. On December 7, 2012 the RTC — after finding Atty. Rey Ciriaco Ponce’s reassessment controlling — ordered petitioner to pay a deficiency of P91,735.40 within ten days; the order was announced in open court and copies were sent to petitioner’s addresses but returned marked “RTS—moved.” Petitioner did not pay.
On February 21, 2013 the RTC dismissed the case for failure to pay the required docket fees. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (filed March 20, 2013) argued counsel did not receive the December 7 order and that the computation was incorrect; the RTC denied the motion (July 1, 2013). The CA, in the appealed decision of April 3, 2018, affirmed the dismissal, finding the RTC had jurisdic...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the RTC’s dismissal even though petitioner paid the deficiency in docket fees while the case was pending before the CA?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the RTC’s dismissal when neither petitioner nor his counsel received a copy of the order directing payment of the d...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)