Title
Llantero vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-28421
Decision Date
Jul 20, 1981
Petitioner occupied land owned by respondent, claimed ownership, lost in trial and appeal. Motion for reconsideration dismissed due to incorrect docket number, binding client to counsel's negligence.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28421)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background of the Dispute
    • Petitioner: Moises Llantero, represented by his son Tranquilino Llantero, filed a Petition for Certiorari.
    • Respondents: The Court of Appeals and J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. (a domestic corporation organized under Philippine law) are involved in the dispute.
    • Subject Matter: The petition challenges the Court of Appeals’ Resolution dated November 11, 1967, which denied petitioner’s Motion to Set Aside Entry of Judgment in CA-G.R. No. 27311-R.
  • Land Ownership and Title Issues
    • The contested property is a parcel of land known as the Sta. Mesa Heights Subdivision, located in Quezon City.
    • The land is registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1267 (37686-Rizal) in the name of J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc.
    • Title history: The land’s title was originally registered under the Torrens system on July 8, 1914.
  • Origin of the Litigation
    • On January 7, 1959, the Corporation (J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc.) instituted an action for recovery of possession against petitioner in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-3697.
    • Allegations by the Corporation:
      • Petitioner entered the property on March 23, 1957, allegedly using force, strategy, and stealth.
      • The petitioner occupied and constructed a house on a 200-square-meter portion of the property without the Corporation’s consent.
    • Petitioner’s defense: He claimed to have purchased the land on October 29, 1956 from Felicidad Campos, whose title could be traced back to Telesforo Deudor, the earliest known owner.
  • Judicial Proceedings Leading to the Appeal
    • Trial Court Decision (June 21, 1959):
      • The trial court ordered petitioner (or any person claiming under him) to remove his constructions from the property.
      • A monthly payment of P20.00 from April 23, 1957 until possession is restored was imposed.
      • Petitioner was also ordered to bear the costs.
    • Appeal to the Court of Appeals:
      • The petitioner appealed the trial court decision in CA-G.R. No. 27311-R.
      • On May 11, 1967, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, which became final upon entry on May 30, 1967.
  • The Motion for Reconsideration and Its Defect
    • Filing of the Motion:
      • Through counsel, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 14, 1967 by registered mail.
      • The Motion was erroneously filed under the docket number CA-G.R. No. 26772-R (instead of the correct CA-G.R. No. 27311-R) and was attached to the expediente of the wrong case.
    • Consequence of the Error:
      • With no valid Motion for Reconsideration in CA-G.R. No. 27311-R, the judgment against petitioner became final and executory.
      • The Court of Appeals subsequently denied the Motion to Set Aside the Entry of Judgment on November 11, 1967.
  • Additional Evidentiary and Legal Issues Raised
    • Petitioner’s claim:
      • Asserted his Motion for Reconsideration was timely filed (relying on the postal rule: the date of mailing is the date of filing).
      • Maintained that the Court of Appeals erred in entering the judgment as final by not considering the Motion for Reconsideration, notwithstanding its clerical error.
      • Relied on documents of sale of possessory rights executed by Felicidad Campos and on several Compromise Agreements to assert his right over the property.
    • Respondents’ counterarguments:
      • The error in docket numbering was the fault of petitioner’s counsel, whose negligence rendered the Motion for Reconsideration legally inexistent.
      • As the Motion was intended primarily as a delaying tactic, similar arguments had been previously overruled by this Court and by the Court of Appeals.
      • The trial court’s rejection of petitioner’s evidence was proper since the Corporation’s title (registered since 1914) was superior and unchallenged by valid evidence of possessory rights.

Issues:

  • Whether the erroneous docket number on the Motion for Reconsideration rendered the motion legally inexistent, despite being filed on time according to the postal rule.
    • The petitioner argued that the date of mailing, as shown by the post office registry receipt, should be deemed the date of filing.
    • The issue ultimately focused on whether a clerical error in docket referencing can nullify a properly timely filed motion.
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in entering the judgment as final and executory given the alleged timely filing of a Motion for Reconsideration.
    • The petitioner contended that the error did not prejudice his right to have his reconsideration granted.
    • The respondent maintained that the motion could not be attached to the proper expediente due to the docket error, thus justifying the finality of the judgment.
  • Whether petitioner’s underlying claim to the property based on documents of sale and Compromise Agreements could affect the outcome of the motion to set aside the judgment.
    • The petitioner reiterated evidence of possessory rights through a document of sale and multiple Compromise Agreements.
    • The issue involved the weight and validity of such evidence against the backdrop of the Corporation’s pristine title dating back to 1914.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms