G.R. No. 235308 - Heirs of Cabrera vs. Heirs of Jurado

On January 31, 2008, the petitioner heirs of Januaria Cabrera, represented by Miguela Cabarrubias-Abella and/or Asuncion Cabarrubias-Aquila, filed a Complaint for Annulment/Cancellation of Titles and Tax Declarations, Damages, Attorney’s Fees, and Costs.
The complaint was directed against multiple respondent heirs:

Heirs of Florentino Jurado, namely: Lucita U. Villamor (married to Rolan Villamor); Bernardita dela Rosa (married to Joseph Winnie dela Rosa); Robert Jurado (married to Joselyn Elloran); and Gilbert Jurado (married to Francisca Tapia).
Heirs of Fredeswinda Jurado, including Rolan, Wilfredo, Jiffy, Alex, Glen, Hans, Spooky, Ken, Lenny, Nestor Villamor, and Lourdes Tiu.
Heirs of Anastacia Abella and Jovito Anoling, Sr., including the spouses Edgar M. Martinez and Kim Y. Martinez.
Public respondents such as the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the Register of Deeds for the City of Cebu.

The case was segregated to the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 58 (Civil Case No. CEB-34035) where summons and subsequent pleadings and affirmative defenses were filed by the respondents.

Tiu, one of the private respondents, filed an Answer with a compulsory Counterclaim on February 18, 2008 asserting several defenses:

Although the trial court directed both petitioners and Tiu to submit their memoranda, only Tiu complied with the directive.

On October 4, 2013, the RTC dismissed the complaint against Tiu due to the petitioners’ failure to state a cause of action, emphasizing that they did not establish themselves as legal and forced heirs of Januaria Cabrera.
The RTC’s dismissal was grounded on the principle set forth in Heirs of Yaptinchay v. Del Rosario, noting that absence of proper party-in-interest leads to a motion to dismiss.
The RTC’s Order became final as petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration in due time.

Motions for preliminary hearings and affirmative defenses.
Motions to dismiss by some respondents (e.g., the spouses Martinez).
Manifestations and motions filed by the DPWH (via the Office of the Solicitor General), as well as additional respondents.

On April 16, 2015, the RTC issued an Omnibus Order dismissing the complaint against all respondents. The court reiterated that the absence of proper heirship barred the petitioners from being considered real parties-in-interest.
Petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on June 26, 2016 for being untimely and non-compliant with Section 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.
Further procedural steps included petitioners filing a Motion for Extension on September 28, 2015 and, eventually, on October 13, 2015, a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court was filed before the Court of Appeals (CA).

On May 30, 2016, the CA issued a Resolution dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that it was an improper remedy to assail the RTC’s final dismissal order.
The CA emphasized several procedural deficiencies:

Non-payment of requisite docket and other lawful fees.
Failure to adhere to the preferred personal mode of filing as required by Rule 13, Section 11 of the Revised Rules of Procedure.
Inconsistencies in the Explanation and Proof of Service, as well as discrepancies in the Affidavit of Service.
Irregularities in the Notarial Certificate required under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
The impermissibility of obtaining an extension to file a petition for certiorari in light of established jurisprudence.

On September 20, 2017, the CA further denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of its Resolution.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely erred in dismissing the petitioners’ Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 on the ground that it was an improper remedy.

The contention centered on the argument that technical deficiencies should be overlooked in favor of substantial justice.

Whether the dismissal by the CA, which was partially based on technical defects in the petitioners’ filing (such as non-payment of fees and inconsistencies in service requirements), constitutes a grave abuse of discretion.

Petitioners argued that deficiencies in the observance of procedural rules should yield to the broader interest of justice and not preclude review.