Case Digest (G.R. No. 150327)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Peralta et al., G.R. No. 150327, June 18, 2003, Supreme Court En Banc, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners were the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Regional Executive Director (DENR Region XI) and Marion V. Abundo, Sr.; respondents were Marilyn A. Peralta, Rosie A. Lavalan, Grace A. Reyes, Alberto B. Alonday, Mercy B. Alonday, Richelieu B. Alonday, Azucena B. Alonday, Janeta A. Baluran and the Register of Deeds of Davao City. The respondents (plaintiffs below) sued in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, Davao City, for recovery of possession and ownership over a parcel covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-134231, asserting inheritance from Benedicto B. Alonday and antecedent homestead patent.
After pleadings, the RTC appointed a panel of commissioners to conduct a relocation survey. The panel reported that of the titled parcel, 92,216 sq.m. lay within certified Alienable & Disposable lands and 145,682 sq.m. fell within the Mt. Apo National Park reservation. The RTC, however, ruled on May 6, 1997 in favor of the respondents, held the Torrens title valid, rejected probative weight of the panel report, and ordered the defendants (the State parties) to vacate the portion occupied by them and remove improvements. The RTC relied in part on a claimed declassification pursuant to Section 1827 of the 1987 Revised Administrative Code.
The petitioning government defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated May 30, 1997, which the RTC expunged on June 11, 1997 as a “mere scrap of paper” for failure to include the notice of hearing required by Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. The defendants filed a notice of appeal on July 22, 1997; the branch later had a change in judges and the newly-appointed judge initially gave due course to the appeal on January 28, 1999 but on February 5, 1999 the RTC issued an ex parte order dismissing the appeal for failure to perfect it within the reglementary period. The RTC then issued and later recalled a writ of execution.
The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA), which on April 27, 2001 denied due course and dismissed the petition, concluding that the OSG’s defective motion for recon...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly hold that petitioners failed to perfect their appeal because the May 30, 1997 Motion for Reconsideration was defective for lack of the notice of hearing required by Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15, and therefore deny certiorari relief?
- Did the Regional Trial Court commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners' appeal and in sustaining respondents' ownership over the land claimed partly to be Mt. Apo National Park?
- Even assuming counsel negligence caused loss of appeal, should the Court relax procedural rules and reopen the trial so the State may present evidence, giv...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)