Case Digest (G.R. No. 193374)
Facts:
This is Heirs of the Late Gerry Ecarma, namely: Avelina Suiza‑Ecarma, Dennis Ecarma, Jerry Lyn Ecarma Pena, Antonio Ecarma and Natalia Ecarma Sangalang v. Court of Appeals and Renato A. Ecarma, G.R. No. 193374, June 08, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are the heirs and substitutes of the late Gerry (Jerry) Ecarma; respondent Renato A. Ecarma was the court‑appointed administrator (regular/special administrator) in the intestate proceedings for the estate of Arminda vda. de Ecarma; the Court of Appeals (CA) is the other respondent insofar as its dismissal of petitioners’ appeal is assailed.
Chronology: Natalio Ecarma died on May 9, 1970; his heirs executed an Extrajudicial Settlement dividing four properties (Kitanlad, Cuyapo, two Lala lots), allotting Arminda an undivided 2/9 share and each child 1/9. No physical division occurred and co‑ownership persisted. Arminda died on April 17, 1983. After the RTC, Branch 86, dismissed a probate petition, Renato filed intestate proceedings for Arminda with the RTC, Branch 220, on May 18, 1990; he was appointed Special Administrator on January 30, 1991.
Following years of conflict with Gerry (who stayed on the Kitanlad lot and opposed sale or partition), Renato filed a Project of Partition on March 9, 2005 (and an Omnibus Motion on April 7, 2005) proposing longitudinal and equal seven‑part divisions of the properties and donation of some shares by other heirs to the AFP. The RTC, Branch 220, on July 28, 2005, issued an Order approving the proposed partitions (Kitanlad longitudinally into seven contiguous shares, Cuyapo and Lala into seven equal parts) and directing partition and titling; expenses to be borne by each heir. Gerry (and Rodolfo) moved for reconsideration, arguing impracticability and lack of jurisdiction over portions not forming part of Arminda’s estate; the RTC denied those motions.
Gerry appealed to the Court of Appeals. Before the CA, Gerry died and petitioners were substituted; they filed an Appellants' Brief. Renato moved to dismiss the brief for non‑compliance with Section 13, Rule 44 (contents of appellant’s brief). The CA, in twin Resolutions dated March 31, 2010 and June 22, 2010 (Authored by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro‑Javier, with JJ. Guarina III and Villon concurring), found the brief deficient—lacking subject index, table of cases, statement of case, statement of facts and page references—and dismissed the appeal under Section 1(1)(f), Rule 50. A Supplemental Appellants' Brief filed with the motion for reconsideration was again found deficient and the CA denied reconsideration.
Petitioners filed a petition for cert...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was a petition under Rule 65 the proper remedy to challenge the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of petitioners’ appeal, or was Rule 45 the correct remedy?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners’ appeal for non‑compliance with the content requirements of an appellant’s brief under Section 13, Rule 44?
- Was the Regional Trial Court, Branch 220’s Order approving the Project of Partition of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)