Case Digest (G.R. No. 152766)
Facts:
In Lilia Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, petitioner Lilia Sanchez erected a dwelling on a 76-square-meter lot co-owned by Eliseo Sanchez (husband of Celia Sanchez), Marilyn Sanchez (wife of Nicanor Montalban), Lilian Sanchez (widow), Nenita Sanchez (single), Susana Sanchez (wife of Fernando Ramos), and Felipe Sanchez, all registered under TCT No. 263624. On February 20, 1995, private respondent Virginia Teria appeared as the transferee of the entire parcel under TCT No. 289216 via a “Deed of Absolute Sale” dated June 23, 1995, which petitioner disavowed, alleging her signature was forged. In September 1995, respondent Teria instituted an action for recovery of possession with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 49. On February 12, 1998, the MeTC held that the sale was valid for 5/6 of the lot, reserving 1/6 for petitioner. Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 120, but her counsel failed to file the required memorandum; the RTC, findCase Digest (G.R. No. 152766)
Facts:
- Lot ownership and sale
- Petitioner Lilia Sanchez constructed a house on a 76-sq. m. lot co-owned by six siblings under TCT No. 263624: Eliseo (m. Celia), Marilyn (m. Nicanor), Lilian (widow), Nenita (single), Susana (m. Fernando) and Felipe.
- On 23 June 1995 the six co-owners executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Virginia Teria (registered under TCT No. 289216), with petitioner’s purported signature later proven a forgery.
- Judicial proceedings and execution
- In September 1995 Virginia Teria filed an action for recovery of possession before MeTC-Br. 49, Caloocan City. On 12 February 1998 the MeTC held the sale valid for 5/6 of the lot and declared the remaining 1/6 to belong to petitioner due to the forgery.
- Petitioner appealed to RTC-Br. 120 but her counsel failed to file a memorandum. On 27 July 1998 the RTC affirmed the MeTC decision. A writ of execution issued on 4 November 1998, and after petitioner’s refusal to vacate, Teria began demolishing petitioner’s house on 28 April 1999 (continuing until 24 May 1999).
- Attempts for relief
- On 29 October 1999 petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with the RTC, alleging counsel negligence; the petition and a subsequent motion for reconsideration were denied.
- On 14 June 2000 she filed a certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed on 23 May 2001; its motion for reconsideration was denied on 8 January 2002. Petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Main issue
- Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s certiorari petition for lack of merit.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)