G.R. No. 128803 - Asiavest Limited vs. Court of Appeals

Deceased Francisco Felipe Gonzales y Narciso owned a 1,667‑square meter property located in North Bay Boulevard, C‑3 Road, Navotas, Metro Manila, originally covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 280406 issued on April 20, 1994.
A deed of sale transferred the property to Francisco Gabriel Gonzales III, prompting the cancellation of TCT No. 280406 and the issuance of TCT No. 21297 on April 30, 1999, at 11:07 a.m.
On the same day, TCT No. 21297 was cancelled and a new TCT No. 21299 was issued in the name of Esperanza G. Consigna.

On May 18, 1999, Mercedita Valenciano, acting on behalf of Esperanza, executed an affidavit of loss for TCTs 280406, 280407, and 280409.
Claiming to be the beneficial owner, Esperanza filed a petition for the reconstitution of the owner’s duplicate copies of the lost or destroyed titles.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malabon, Branch 73, issued an order on June 7, 1999, requiring the publication of notice and the setting of an initial hearing on the petition pursuant to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 26.

On September 19, 1999, the original copy of TCT No. 280406 was annotated to reflect the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy, pursuant to the RTC’s order.
On November 5, 1999, petitioner Mega Fishing Corporation (MFC) purchased the subject property from Esperanza for P9,601,920.00 by means of a Kasulatan ng Ganap at Lubos na Bilihan.
Following the sale, TCT No. 21299 was cancelled and TCT No. 21926 was issued in the name of MFC.

Prior to Francisco’s death, his last will and testament was submitted to probate in 1989, with letters testamentary issued in favor of Teresita as the executrix.
In May 2000, the estate of Francisco Felipe N. Gonzales (represented by Teresita) initiated litigation against Esperanza, Mercedita, MFC, Vicente Garcia, and Sarah Principe to annul and cancel TCTs 21297, 21299, and 21926 and to reinstate TCT No. 280406.
In its November 22, 2011 Decision, the RTC ruled in favor of the respondent (the estate), declaring:

The owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 280406 (annotated as per Entry No. 34207/T‑280406) null and void, as the order dated June 7, 1999, was not a final decree for issuing a new duplicate title but merely an order for initial proceedings.
TCTs 21297 and 21299 were invalidly issued and, hence, null and void.
The deed of sale from Francisco Felipe Gonzales to Francisco Felipe Gonzales III was invalid given the presence of forged signatures and the lack of a properly commissioned notary public.
MFC was not considered a buyer in good faith, having failed to discharge that burden, and the Acting Register of Deeds, Garcia, could be held liable for damages.

Cancellation of TCTs 21297, 21299, and 21926.
Revival of TCT No. 280406 in the name of Francisco Gonzales y Narciso.
Solidary payment of exemplary damages of P1,000,000.00 and attorney’s fees of P200,000.00 by the respondents.

MFC filed a motion for reconsideration of the RTC Decision, which was subsequently denied, prompting the filing of a notice of appeal.
In the Court of Appeals (CA), a notice dated August 15, 2013, required MFC to file its appellant’s brief.
MFC moved for an extension, arguing that it had only discovered the notice during a year‑end inventory, and the CA eventually granted an extension until January 19, 2014.
On February 6, 2014, MFC filed its motion to admit the appellant’s brief, but the CA, in its March 28, 2014 Resolution, denied the motion based on the delay in filing.
The CA later issued resolutions on July 22, 2014 (closing and terminating the case) and October 14, 2014 (denying motions for reconsideration), emphasizing that the appeal brief was filed beyond the reglementary period.

On November 3, 2014, MFC filed a motion for extension of time to file its petition for review on certiorari, which was granted by the Supreme Court on February 4, 2015.
In its petition, MFC contended that the CA gravely abused its discretion by dismissing the appeal on a procedural technicality, noting that:

The late filing was not necessarily grounds for automatic dismissal.
The failure was attributable to the gross negligence of its former counsel rather than a deliberate disregard of procedural rules.
MFC is a buyer in good faith and for value.

Both parties submitted their respective memoranda in support of their positions.

Whether the strict application of procedural rules – specifically the timely filing of the appellant’s brief – should result in the dismissal of an appeal when the delay is due to the gross negligence of counsel rather than the party’s own fault.
Whether the CA abused its discretion in dismissing MFC’s appeal on the technicality of late filing despite no demonstrable prejudice to the respondent.
Whether fundamental principles of due process and the need to adjudicate substantial rights (life, liberty, honor, or property) warrant a more liberal judicial approach in excusing procedural lapses caused by counsel’s error.