G.R. No. 191492 - Sibayan vs. Costales

On February 27, 2003, petitioner Patricia Sibayan, through her representative Teodicio Sibayan, filed an action for Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Damages against respondents Emilio Costales, Susana Isidro, Rodolfo Isidro, Marcelo Isidro, and Roberto Cerane before the RTC of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, Branch 45.
In her complaint (Civil Case No. U-7642), petitioner asserted ownership of a 5,726-square-meter parcel in Brgy. Catablan, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 180130.
The petition stemmed from alleged encroachments by the respondents on a specific portion of the lot (Lot Nos. 5 and 7), prompting the petitioner to seek judicial relief and protection of her property rights.

Petitioner attached a relocation survey to her complaint to demonstrate that the disputed portions (Lot Nos. 5 and 7) were indeed within the boundaries of TCT No. 180130.
Based on the survey and her ownership claim, she prayed for a declaration of her exclusive rights over the disputed area and for an order requiring the respondents to vacate the said lot.

Respondents countered by challenging petitioner’s ownership, asserting that they, along with their predecessors-in-interest, had continuously occupied and cultivated the subject property for over 80 years.
They maintained that the actions such as spraying insecticide on the mango trees—a practice they attributed to their exercise of dominion—were proper under their long-standing possession.
Respondents also denied any knowledge of the relocation survey submitted by the petitioner, thereby disputing its evidentiary value.

During the trial, both parties presented documentary and testimonial evidence.
On April 24, 2007, the RTC rendered a decision dismissing the case, finding that respondents had occupied the disputed property for 52 years and that the petitioner’s claim was barred by laches.
A Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioner was denied on August 2, 2007.

Dissatisfied with the RTC’s dismissal, the petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal, thereby elevating the matter to the CA.
Under Section 7, Rule 44 of the Revised Rules of Court, the petitioner was required to file an Appellant’s Brief within 45 days from receipt of the notice (received on November 17, 2008).
The appellant's brief was ultimately filed on June 19, 2009—139 days past the reglementary period.
Consequently, the CA, in its Resolution dated October 2, 2009, declared the appeal abandoned and dismissed it pursuant to Section 1(e) of Rule 50.
The petitioner later sought reconsideration of the dismissal, arguing that her counsel’s gross negligence should not penalize her, especially given that her right to appeal was crucial for protecting her property rights. This motion was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated February 26, 2010.

The petitioner contended that the CA erred in dismissing her appeal solely because of the delayed filing of the brief.
She argued that the negligence of her counsel was of a gross nature and should not automatically negate her substantive right to be heard on the merits.
Furthermore, petitioner claimed that dismissing her appeal effectively deprived her of her right to secure legal protection of her property, thereby violating due process.

Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing the appeal as abandoned due to the late filing of the Appellant’s Brief?
Was it erroneous for the CA to classify the delay—attributed to counsel’s negligence—as simple negligence rather than gross negligence, thereby binding the petitioner to the consequences of the delay?
Did the dismissal of the appeal unlawfully deprive the petitioner of her right to challenge an erroneous RTC decision affecting her property rights and due process?
Can a petitioner be exempt from the consequences of procedural lapses by attributing the fault solely to her counsel’s negligence?