G.R. No. L-23625 - People vs. Terrado

On February 26, 1996, Southern Luzon Institute (SLI), an educational institution in Bulan, Sorsogon, filed a Complaint for Recovery of Ownership and Possession with Damages against petitioners Alonzo Gipa, Imelda Marollano, Juanito Ludovice, Demar Bitangcor, Virgilio Gojit, Felipe Montalban, and four others, including Rosita Montalban.
During the trial, Rosita executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of her sister Daisy M. Placer, authorizing her to represent Rosita and sign papers related to the case.

SLI claimed ownership over a 7,516-square meter parcel of land located in Brgy. Poblacion, Bulan, Sorsogon, covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-28928.
Petitioners and their co-defendants had been informally occupying a part of the property and refused to vacate despite demands.
SLI sought an order to vacate, turn over the property, and payment of compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs of the suit.

The petitioners and co-defendants asserted their right to stay based on occupation dating back to 1950 and that SLI never possessed the property physically.
They challenged SLI’s title as procured by fraud and misrepresentation.
They counterclaimed to be declared lawful possessors, void OCT No. P-28928, and recover moral damages and litigation expenses.

The RTC, by Decision dated January 5, 2005, ruled in favor of SLI as owner by preponderance of evidence, basing on the Miscellaneous Sales Application (MSA) and testimony confirming boundaries.
The court rejected petitioners’ claim citing prior knowledge of SLI’s MSA and insufficiency of petitioners’ documents like tax declarations as conclusive evidence.
The RTC ordered petitioners to vacate, demolish houses at their expense, pay attorney’s fees (Php 10,000), and costs.

Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal granted by the RTC on January 27, 2005.
The CA dismissed the appeal on August 26, 2005 for failure to show payment of appellate docket fees.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration with proof of payment of Php 3,000 appeal fee; the CA reinstated the appeal on November 2, 2005.
The CA later required payment of an additional Php 30.00 legal research fund fee not included before, which petitioners failed to remit despite a nine-month lapse after notice.
On December 20, 2006, the CA dismissed the appeal for failure to complete payment of docket fees.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, tendering payment of Php 30.00 after dismissal, but the CA denied the motion on March 30, 2007.

Petitioners questioned the CA’s dismissal, arguing the failure to pay Php 30.00 should not justify dismissal when the substantial Php 3,000.00 was already paid.
They invoked liberal construction of procedural rules and principles of substantial justice and fair play.
Daisy Placer was included as a petitioner but was not a party in the RTC suit, only representing Rosita through Special Power of Attorney.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in dismissing the appeal for failure to remit the Php 30.00 balance of docket fees after payment of the substantial Php 3,000.00.

Whether Daisy Placer, not being an original party to the suit, may be considered a petitioner on appeal.

(Raised in petitioner's Reply but not considered by the Court) Whether Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9406 exempting PAO clients from payment of docket fees should be given retroactive application.