G.R. No. 167620 - Villena vs. Rupisan

Nicomedes T. Rupisan was initially married to Felicidad Zamora and had five children: Consuelo, Erlinda, Alejandro, Rodolfo, and Romeo.
After Felicidad’s death in 1949, Nicomedes married Maria Rosario de Castro on October 14, 1964; this marriage was childless.
During their marriage, the couple acquired several properties, namely:

A parcel of land in Poblacion, Alcala, Pangasinan (TCT No. 101871) with an area of 1,492 square meters and an assessed value of P9,600.00.
A parcel of residential land (Lot 1, Plan Psu-79891) in Poblacion, Alaminos, Pangasinan (292 square meters, covered by TCT No. 1037).
A second parcel (Lot 3, Plan Psu-79891) also in Poblacion, Alaminos, Pangasinan, with an area of 16 square meters covered by the same title.

The spouses executed an Agreement on Separation of Conjugal Properties, designating that:

A parcel of land in Section A (with the house and furniture) was to belong exclusively to the husband.
The parcels in Section B (and the house with furniture on them) were to belong exclusively to the wife.

The agreement was duly annotated and registered on TCT No. 1037 on June 22, 1981.

Nicomedes died intestate on March 20, 1984.
On May 18, 1984, Maria Rosario executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication, thereby adjudicating the subject properties to herself.
Subsequently, she cancelled TCT No. 1037 and had a new title (TCT No. 8177) issued in her name and also cancelled the applicable tax declaration.

Maria Rosario died on April 24, 1992, allegedly leaving a holographic will dated October 3, 1989, devising the properties under TCT No. 8177 to her niece, petitioner Carolina Villena, who took immediate possession.
Respondents, Romeo and Rodolfo Rupisan (sons from the first marriage), initiated Civil Case No. A-2106 for partition, annulment of title/documents, recovery of possession/ownership, and damages.
Petitioner filed Special Proceedings No. A-1278 for the probate of the holographic will.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) consolidated both cases and rendered a decision on September 25, 2002:

Probate of the will was allowed.
The partition case (Civil Case No. A-2106) was dismissed with defendants ordered to pay moral, exemplary, and attorney’s fees.

Respondents filed a Notice of Appeal on October 5, 2002; however, issues arose with the filing and compliance with procedural requirements:

Atty. Jose Antonio M. Guillermo, initially the counsel for respondents, filed a Notice of Withdrawal on October 4, 2002.
Despite his withdrawal, he still filed the Notice of Appeal, which was received on October 9, 2002.

The RTC, in its order on November 22, 2002, denied the appeal in Civil Case No. A-2106 due to late payment of docket fees, while noting that the appeal in Special Proceeding No. A-1278 was deemed timely pending submission of a complete record on appeal.
On July 16, 2003, the RTC issued an order dismissing both appeals, on the ground that the Notice of Appeal was invalid in view of the counsel’s withdrawal and other non-compliances in the record on appeal.
Respondents then sought relief through a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which was granted on November 10, 2004, annulling the contested resolutions and directing the trial court to give due course to the Notice of Appeal.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the Court of Appeals, which was denied by a Resolution on April 1, 2005.

Whether the Court of Appeals validly acquired jurisdiction over the respondents’ Petition for Certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 79405 despite respondents’ failure to file a prior Motion for Reconsideration affecting the RTC order dated July 16, 2003.

Whether a lawyer, previously dismissed by his client, may still validly file a Notice of Appeal without the conformity of his former client, thereby making the Notice of Appeal in the instant case valid.

Whether, even assuming the Notice of Appeal was validly filed, respondents perfected their appeal on time as required by the rules and jurisprudence.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion or acted without or in excess of jurisdiction by accepting respondents’ explanations—characterized as self-serving and gratuitous—for the delay in the payment of docket fees, particularly within the framework of exceptional circumstances that justify late payment.

How the Motion for Approval of the Record on Appeal, together with the record on appeal filed by Siguion Reyna Montecillo and Ongsiako, should be treated in the absence of a valid substitution of counsel.