Case Digest (G.R. No. 141810)
Facts:
Petitioners Vicente delos Santos, et al. and respondents Fred Elizalde and Joan Elizalde, with additional intervenor parties, litigated a Complaint for Quieting of Title, Damages and Attorney's Fees before the Kalibo, Aklan RTC, Branch VI involving adjoining lots in Boracay Island, Malay, Aklan. On April 29, 1996, the RTC declared Jesus delos Santos and Rosita delos Santos-Flores lawful owners of two-thirds (2/3) of the disputed land and Fred Elizalde owner of the remaining one-third (1/3), ordered cancellation of certain tax declarations, and dismissed petitioners’ complaint.Petitioners’ appeal to the Court of Appeals was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 54136, while Elizalde’s appeal was CA-G.R. SP No. 48475. After the CA required appellants to file their briefs, petitioners obtained multiple extensions but ultimately failed to file an appellant’s brief; respondents moved to dismiss, and on May 11, 1999, the CA dismissed petitioners’ appeal and considered it withdrawn, also denyin
Case Digest (G.R. No. 141810)
Facts:
- Parties and nature of the case
- Petitioners were multiple individuals (Delos Santos and Sualog families, with several joined by their respective spouses) who filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to reverse the Court of Appeals (CA) decisions that dismissed their appeal and treated it as abandoned.
- Respondents were Fred Elizalde and Joan Elizalde; Jesus delos Santos and Rosita delos Santos-Flores; Gloria Martin; Domingo Casimero, Sergio Casimero, Abundio Casimero, and Teodoro Casimero.
- The controversy arose from a civil action in the Kalibo, Aklan Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch VI, followed by appeals to the CA and then a petition to the Supreme Court.
- RTC action and claims over the disputed lots
- On December 15, 1986, petitioners filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title, Damages and Attorney’s Fees before the RTC involving four (4) adjoining lots:
- Lot 393-A (1,515 sqm)
- Lot 393-B (1,010 sqm)
- Lot 394-D (5,764 sqm)
- Lot 394-E (6,482 sqm)
- Total land area of 14,771 sqm, located in Boracay Island, Malay, Aklan.
- Petitioners filed an amended complaint on May 8, 1991.
- Petitioners alleged ownership based on inheritance from the late Mariano delos Santos, their common ascendant, either by their own right or by right of representation.
- Respondents asserted different ownership theories:
- Fred and Joan Elizalde (first set of intervenors before the trial court) claimed they purchased the lots on June 18, 1974 from the heirs of Leonardo delos Santos, whom they alleged as the rightful and exclusive owner.
- Gloria Martin, Domingo Casimero, Sergio Casimero, Abundio Casimero, and Teodoro Casimero (second set of intervenors) claimed ownership over Lots 393-B and 394-E as heirs of Tomasa Prado, who allegedly owned those lots.
- Jesus delos Santos and Rosita delos Santos-Flores (third set of intervenors) claimed they were entitled to two-thirds (2/3) of the disputed lots as rightful inheritance, and that they did not sell nor assign their share to anyone, including respondent Fred Elizalde.
- RTC decision (April 29, 1996) and division of ownership
- After due hearing, the RTC rendered its decision on April 29, 1996 in Civil Case No. 3683.
- The RTC dismissed:
- Petitioners’ complaint for lack of merit.
- The complaint in intervention filed by the second set of intervenors for lack of merit.
- The RTC declared:
- Two deeds of sale (Exhibits 29 and 30) null and void insofar as they affect the two-thirds (2/3) share of intervenors Jesus and Rosita.
- Intervenors Jesus delos Santos and Rosita delos Santos-Flores as lawful owners of the two-thirds portion, specifically 9,915 square meters on the northwest portion.
- Respondent Fred Elizalde as rightful owner of the one-third portion, specifically 4,957 square meters on the southeast portion, segregated by a boundary line from the seashore to the inland or from southwest to northeast.
- The RTC ordered:
- Cancellation or revision of Tax Declaration No. 4422 in the name of Fred Elizalde and all tax declarations issued subsequent thereto to conform to the ownership division.
- Issuance of new tax declarations to intervenors Jesus and Rosita covering their two-thirds share.
- Petitioners and persons claiming interest to deliver complete possession to defendants and the first set of intervenors.
- The RTC made no pronouncement as to costs.
- Notices of appeal and CA docketing
- Petitioners filed their Notice of Appeal dated June 6, 1996.
- Respondent Fred Elizalde filed his separate Notice of Appeal dated May 16, 1996.
- The CA docketed the matters as:
- CA-G.R. CV No. 54136 for petitioners.
- CA-G.R. SP No. 48475 for respondent Elizalde.
- CA briefing deadlines, extensions, and respondent Elizalde’s abandonment of his appeal
- The CA issued a Notice to File Brief on June 2, 1998, requiring petitioners and respondent Elizalde to file briefs within forty-five (45) days from receipt.
- Petitioners admitted receiving the notice on June 15, 1998, and therefore initially had until July 30, 1998 to file their brief.
- Petitioners filed, by registered mail, on July 27, 1998, a Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief for plaintiffs-appellants, praying for:
- An extension of forty-five (45) days from July 30, 1998 to September 13, 1998.
- On September 10, 1998, petitioners filed another motion for extension for another forty-five (45)-day extension until October 27, 1998.
- Meanwhile, respondents Fred Elizalde, Jesus delos Santos, and Rosita delos Santos-Flores filed on October 6, 1998 a Joint Manifestation and Motion:
- They stated that respondent Elizalde abandoned his appeal because of an amicable settlement reached through a May 27, 1997 Agreement.
- They agreed to swap and re-adjust the areas adjudged by the trial court in their favor, while stating the matter would remain without prejudice to a final judgment by the CA.
- Elizalde moved that his appeal be considered withdrawn and that he be excused from filing an appellant’s brief.
- After this, petitioners continued to seek extensions:
- On October 27, 1998, petitioners filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Final Extension of thirty (30) days until November 27, 1998.
- On November 27, 1998, petitioners filed another thirty (30)-day extension.
- On December 28, 1998, petitioners filed yet another motion for thirty (30) days, such that the period sought to file appellant’s brief would end on January 27, 1999.
- The CA proceedings reflected that petitioners, as of the first extension motion filed on July 27, 1998, sought a total extension of one hundred eighty (180) days.
- Petitioners’ withdrawal attempt and the Undertaking/Agreement
- Respondents opposed the extensions and moved for dismissal for petitioners’ failure to file the required appellant’s brief.
- On April 8, 1999, petitioners, through their former counsel Atty. Napoleon M. Victoriano, filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Appeal.
- The motion sought withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that petitioners and respondents delos Santos entered into an amicable settlement denominated as an Undertaking dated September 19, 1998.
- The Undertaking allegedly provided that petitioners would be paid Four Million Pesos (PhP 4,000,000.00) in consideration of leaving the disputed lots peacefully.
- The Undertaking was allegedly signed by 39 of the 46 petitioners, and was notarized by Atty. Edgar S. Calizo.
- The motion further alleged that respondents delos Santos’ counsel Atty. Romeo R. Robiso executed a promissory note on October 15, 1998 on behalf of petitioners for PhP 4,000,000.00.
- Petitioners later disputed these allegations, claiming that their alleged signatures were forged, that they did not receive any of the money, and that they never authorized Atty. Victoriano to withdraw the appeal.
- CA dismissal (May 11, 1999) and resolution of petitioners’ later motion for reconsideration
- On May 11, 1999, the CA issued the assailed Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 54136 and SP No. 48475:
- It dismissed CA-G.R. CV No. 54136 and SP No. 48475. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Timeliness and reckoning of the period to file a Motion for Reconsideration
- Whether the CA erred in denying admission of petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration filed by new counsel on June 17, 1999 on the ground that it was filed nine (9) days late.
- Whether the fifteen (15)-day period to file a Motion for Reconsideration should be counted from:
- petitioners’ alleged knowledge of the CA decision on June 2, 1999, rather than
- the former counsel’s receipt of the decision on May 24, 1999.
- Whether counsel’s negligence could justify liber