G.R. No. 166944 - Magsino vs. De Ocampo

Petitioner Juanito Magsino alleged ownership in fee simple of a 10-hectare agricultural parcel in Sapinit, San Juan, Antipolo City, and prior physical possession for over 30 years.
He claimed respondents Elena De Ocampo and Ramon Guico, Jr. unlawfully bulldozed portions of the land on February 5, 2000, with threats and armed men, depriving him of possession; he filed a complaint for forcible entry with prayer for preliminary injunction in the MeTC.

MeTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction but the MTC in Taytay, Rizal granted only injunctive relief, prompting respondent De Ocampo to counterclaim ownership under title originally in her mother’s name and to assert the petitioner was a mere squatter; Guico claimed he owned the titled land.

On May 5, 2003, the MTC (Civil Case No. 4141) dismissed the complaint for failure to substantiate allegations, recalled the injunction, ordered petitioner to vacate, and awarded respondents ₱100,000 for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses plus costs.
On September 17, 2003, RTC Branch 74 in Antipolo City affirmed the MTC decision in toto and, on November 6, 2003, denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

Petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 42, Section 2(d), but omitted certified copies of the complaint, answer, motion to dismiss, and the parties’ memoranda on appeal.
On January 8, 2004, the CA dismissed the petition for procedural noncompliance with Rule 42; on January 28, 2005, it denied the motion for reconsideration.

Whether the Court of Appeals had discretion to dispense with the attachment requirements of Rule 42, Section 2(d) in the interest of substantial justice.
Whether the case should be remanded for adjudication on the merits given the documents the petitioner did attach.
Whether strict adherence to procedural technicalities deprived the petitioner of due process and obstructed the search for truth.