Case Digest (G.R. No. 193253)
Facts:
In January 2001, respondents Spouses Jesus D. Morales and Carolina N. Morales filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City a complaint for judicial foreclosure of a house and lot situated in Bago Bantay, Quezon City, alleging that on March 23, 1993, petitioners’ predecessors, Spouses Nicanor and Luciana Bartolome, borrowed P500,000.00 at five percent per month to be repaid within two months and mortgaged the property as security. After the repayment term lapsed and only partial payment was made, the mortgagors died, prompting the foreclosure suit against the heirs and transferees, namely Juliet Vitug Madarang, Romeo Bartolome, and by virtue of general power of attorney, Rodolfo and Ruby Anne Bartolome, who challenged the authenticity of the mortgage deed and raised that the complaint was barred by a prior dismissal in another branch. On December 22, 2009, the RTC rendered judgment ordering defendants to pay P500,000.00 with seven percent interest within 90–120 daysCase Digest (G.R. No. 193253)
Facts:
- Mortgage and loan background
- On March 23, 1993, Spouses Nicanor and Luciana Bartolome borrowed ₱500,000.00 from Spouses Jesus D. and Carolina N. Morales at 5% interest per month and secured the loan by mortgaging a house and lot in Bago Bantay, Quezon City.
- The Bartolomes failed to pay within two months; after demand, they made only partial payments and eventually died, leaving their heirs as respondents in the foreclosure.
- Foreclosure suit in the Regional Trial Court
- On January 9, 2001, the Moraleses filed a complaint for judicial foreclosure against Juliet Vitug Madarang (allegedly acting as “Lita Bartolome”), Romeo Bartolome, Rodolfo Bartolome, and Ruby Anne Bartolome.
- Defendants challenged the authenticity of the Bartolome signatures on the mortgage and invoked a prior dismissal in another branch of the RTC.
- Trial court decision and post-judgment motions
- On December 22, 2009, RTC Branch 222, Quezon City, ordered defendants to pay ₱500,000.00 plus 7% monthly interest and costs within 90–120 days, otherwise the property would be auctioned.
- Defendants received the decision on January 29, 2010, filed a pro forma motion for reconsideration (and amendment) and requested a PNP handwriting expert; the RTC denied all on May 25, 2010.
- Appeal and petition for relief from judgment
- Defendants’ counsel received the May 25, 2010 order on June 24, 2010, had until July 9, 2010 to appeal but filed the notice of appeal on August 11, 2010; the RTC denied due course on August 13, 2010.
- On September 24, 2010, defendants filed a petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, citing excusable negligence of their 80-year-old counsel; the RTC denied it on April 27, 2011 for being filed beyond 60 days and six months from finality.
- Court of Appeals and Supreme Court proceedings
- Petitioners filed a certiorari petition in the CA on July 13, 2011; the CA dismissed it outright on July 27, 2011 for failure to move for reconsideration and denied reconsideration on November 10, 2011.
- Petitioners then elevated to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari, arguing (a) pure questions of law excused the reconsideration requirement and (b) actual receipt of judgment on August 11, 2011—a different reckoning of reglementary periods.
Issues:
- Whether the failure of petitioners’ former counsel to file the notice of appeal within the reglementary period constitutes excusable negligence.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing outright the petition for certiorari for failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the order denying the petition for relief from judgment.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)