G.R. No. 201234 - Heirs of Zaulda vs. Zaulda

The petitioners, heirs of Amada A. Zaulda (Eleseo A. Zaulda and Rodolfo A. Zaulda), sought review of lower court decisions regarding their claim over a parcel of land.
The dispute originated from a complaint for recovery of possession and declaration of ownership filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) in Banga, Aklan.
The MCTC rendered a judgment in December 2008 declaring the petitioners as the lawful owners of certain lots, which was subsequently partly modified by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Kalibo, Aklan, declaring respondent Isaac Z. Zaulda as owner of part of the property.
Petitioners then elevated their case by filing a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Civil Procedure before the Court of Appeals (CA).

Following the RTC decision dated January 20, 2010 (received by petitioners on February 25, 2010), petitioners timely filed a motion for reconsideration or new trial on March 10, 2010.
The RTC denied this motion on August 4, 2010, setting a deadline of August 25, 2010 for filing a petition for review.
To meet this deadline, petitioners filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review on August 24, 2010, along with the required docket fees and deposit for costs, requesting an additional 15-day extension.
Petitioners subsequently filed the Petition for Review on September 9, 2010—within the requested extended period.

Although the petition was timely filed, the CA’s administrative process suffered delays: the CA received the motion for extension on September 13, 2010, its Division received it on September 14, 2010, and the ponente’s office obtained it on January 5, 2011.
Based on these administrative delays, the CA issued a resolution on February 11, 2011, dismissing the petition for review as being filed out of time.
The CA further denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on March 6, 2012, maintaining the dismissal on technical grounds.

The property in controversy is Lot 917-M, a parcel of 4,263 square meters situated in Barangay Guadalupe, Libacao, Aklan.
Petitioners alleged that the land was acquired by inheritance from the Spouses Aguila and that they have exercised open, continuous, and adverse possession of the property since time immemorial.
Respondent Isaac Zaulda contested the petitioners’ claim by asserting:

That his predecessor-in-interest, Erene Aguila Zaulda, was the actual possessor.
That a part of the property had been donated to the Municipality of Libacao and that errors in tax declarations contributed to the dispute.
That petitioners extended their claim beyond their lawful share by including land actually owned by Erene.

A point of contention was the verification and certification against forum shopping attached to the petition.
The CA noted that the petition did not include a photocopy of a competent evidence of identity as required by Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
Petitioners, however, had presented their affiant’s identity using his Office of the Senior Citizen (OSCA) identification card, which is recognized as a competent form of identification under the rules.

Whether the petition for review was timely filed, considering that the petitioners obtained an extension through a properly filed Motion for Extension of Time.
Whether the administrative delay in the transmission of the motion for extension by the CA should be attributed to the petitioners or excused as administrative inefficiency.

Whether the failure to attach a photocopy of the affiant’s competent evidence of identity, as required by the Rules on Notarial Practice, constitutes a fatal defect in the petition.
Whether the defect in verification should preclude the court from passing on the merits, given that the identity was in fact established by a recognized identification card.

Whether strict adherence to technical filing rules is warranted when it may result in substantive injustice.
Whether courts should prioritize the merits of the case over procedural lapses that do not impinge on the substantive rights of the parties.