Case Digest (G.R. No. 165777)
Facts:
Ceferina de Ungria [Deceased], Substituted by Her Heirs, Represented by Lolita Ungria San Juan-Javier, and Rhodora R. Pelomida as Their Attorney-in-Fact, G.R. No. 165777, promulgated July 25, 2011, the Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.On August 26, 1999, respondents Rosario Dideles Vda. de Castor (surviving wife of the late Fernando Castor) and their legitimate children filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of General Santos City, Branch 35 (Civil Case No. 6636), against petitioner Ceferina de Ungria and several others for ownership, possession and damages; alternatively, to annul a 3 October 1960 Deed of Transfer and a 23 November 1960 Affidavit of Relinquishment, or to recover Rosario’s conjugal share/redeem the land. The complaint alleged the land was registered in Fernando’s name (OCT No. V-19556), that Fernando’s alleged transfer to Eugenio de Ungria (petitioner’s father) was forged or void, and that the plaintiffs only learned of the documents in 1999.
Petitioner moved to dismiss (ex abundante ad cautelam) on multiple grounds: that a valid sale extinguished plaintiffs’ claim; that the action was barred by extraordinary acquisitive prescription and laches; failure to state a cause; and failure to resort to prior barangay conciliation. An addendum alleged plaintiffs lacked capacity to sue and the court lacked jurisdiction for failure to pay correct filing fees. The RTC denied the motion in an Order dated November 19, 1999; a motion for reconsideration was denied on February 4, 2000.
After further procedural skirmishes concerning filing fees and indigency, the RTC issued a Clarificatory Order on March 30, 2000 stating that because no hearing had occurred the exact amount of damages could not yet be determined and that any insufficiency in filing fees determined after hearing would constitute a lien on the judgment. The RTC repeatedly ordered defendant to file an answer and refused to dismiss the complaint.
Petitioner sought certiorari and prohibition relief from the Court of Appeals (CA), praying for nullification of the RTC orders. In a Decision dated May 26, 2004, the CA dismissed the petition, holding that SC Circular No. 7 did not apply where the amount of damages was immaterial, that respondents had paid docket fees on filing, and that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The CA applied the rule of Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion that filing fees for amounts to be fixed at trial become liens on the judgment. The CA also rejected petitioner’s defenses of acquisitive prescription and laches because the property was Torrens-titled and hence adverse possession/prescription does not divest a registered owner; laches is evidentiary and requires proof. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on September 17, 2004.
Petitioner then filed this petition for ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss for respondents’ alleged nonpayment of the correct docket fees and violation of SC Circular No. 7?
- Are respondents’ claims barred by laches and extraordinary acquis...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)