Title
Borre vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 57204
Decision Date
Mar 14, 1988
Petitioners sought to recover rentals, claiming leased land was public property. Appeal dismissed due to late bond filing; SC ruled no excusable negligence and upheld estoppel against tenants.
dismissal of appeal
estoppel
complaint dismissal

Case Summary (G.R. No. 57204)

Factual Background

Petitioners filed a complaint against Manotok Services, Incorporated to recover rentals they alleged they had paid. They asserted that the land leased to them by the company was actually public land forming part of the Estero de Sunog-Apo and Estero de Maypajo, and therefore did not belong to the company.

Upon the company’s motion, the trial court dismissed the complaint on November 11, 1980, reasoning that the company’s ownership of the property had been recognized by the State through Pres. Decree No. 1670, which declared expropriation of specified parcels along the Estero de Sunog-Apo and listed the parcels as formerly owned by Manotok Realty, Inc. The petitioners received the dismissal order on November 14, 1980.

Petitioners sought reconsideration on December 13, 1980, arguing that the company’s titles covered portions of the esteros that were public property and could not be appropriated and titled by private persons. The trial court denied the first motion in an order dated December 22, 1980, received January 12, 1981. Petitioners then filed a second motion for reconsideration on January 14, 1981, contending that a subsequent survey showed that the lots occupied by them were not covered by the company’s titles and thus were not included within Pres. Decree No. 1670. The trial court denied the second motion on January 20, 1981, and petitioners received that order on January 30, 1981.

Attempted Appeal and Dismissal for Non-Perfection

Petitioners’ appeal from the dismissal of their complaint had a reglementary period measured from notice of the order denying their second motion. The last day to perfect the appeal fell on January 31, 1981. On that day, petitioners filed by registered mail a notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time to file the record on appeal. They did not, however, file their appeal bond until February 2, 1981.

Because the appeal bond was filed beyond the time allowed for perfecting the appeal, the trial court dismissed the appeal, holding that the thirty-day period had already lapsed. Petitioners then went to the Court of Appeals on certiorari, but the petition was dismissed. Petitioners thereafter filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Petitioners’ Contentions

Petitioners argued that the delay in filing the appeal bond resulted from “excusable negligence”. They claimed that they had an “honest belief” that the Office of the Clerk of Court of the then Court of First Instance of Manila was closed on January 31, 1981, which they stated was a Saturday. They asserted that some courts operated on Saturdays in the morning only for a limited time for receiving pleadings. They invoked the policy of the Court to apply remedial rules liberally so that their appeal should be allowed despite the late filing of the bond.

Respondents’ Position and the Procedural Issue

The Supreme Court treated the timeliness of the appeal bond as controlling. It noted that the requirement to file the appeal bond within the reglementary period was mandated by the pre-existing rules, and that, even though Section 18 of the Interim Rules of Court dispensed with the appeal bond requirement in certain circumstances, its retroactive effect was limited. It could not reach actions that had already become final and executory prior to the interim rule’s approval.

Applying Rule 41, Section 13 of the Rules of Court, the Court held that where the notice of appeal, appeal bond, or record on appeal is not filed within the prescribed period, the appeal shall be dismissed. It further emphasized that perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the time fixed by law is both mandatory and jurisdictional.

Ruling of the Supreme Court on the Appeal Bond Issue

The Court held that the trial judge committed no error in dismissing petitioners’ appeal. Although petitioners timely filed the notice of appeal and the motion for extension to file the record on appeal, the appeal bond was filed two days late, after the period for perfecting the appeal had expired. The Court considered the trial court’s decision final and executory as of January 31, 1981.

The Court rejected petitioners’ claim of excusable negligence. It ruled that counsel’s belief that the clerk’s office was closed on Saturdays did not justify the late filing. The Court reasoned that petitioners’ counsel was a practitioner in the Metro Manila area and should have inquired about court office hours rather than assuming that Saturdays were not working days. It found no grave abuse of discretion in the dismissal of the appeal.

Substantive Ruling: Failure to State a Cause of Action and Tenant Estoppel

The Court further upheld the dismissal of petitioners’ complaint. It did not rely on Pres. Decree No. 1670 for resolution. It noted that Pres. Decree No. 1670 had been declared null and void ab initio in Manotok et al. v. National Housing Authority and Republic of the Philippines (G.R. Nos. L-55166-67, May 21, 1987). Even so, the Court sustained the dismissal because petitioners failed to state a cause of action.

The Court explained that petitioners’ complaint rested on the theory that the lands they occupied were part of the public domain and did not belong to the private respondent. However, petitioners admitted in their complaint that they were leasing the property from Manotok Services, Inc. Their action was also for recovery of rentals they had paid.

The Court invoked Rule 131, Section 3(b), holding that a tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the commencement of the lease relationship. It treated this rule as a conclusive presumption. It further discussed the doctrine through Zobel v. Mercado and related cases, where a tenant was estopped from asserting that the leased property formed part of the public domain.

The Court recognized a qualification to tenant estoppel, namely, that it does not apply if the landlord’s title expired, was conveyed, or was defeated by a title paramount after the lease relationship began. The Court held that none of those circumstances appeared in the case. Petitioners did not claim that the landlord’s title had transferred, expired, or been defeated during the subsistence of the lease. Their position was instead that the leased lands had all along been public property. The Court ruled that this effectively amounted to denying the landlord’s title from the start of the lessor-lessee relationship, which Rule 131 does not permit.

In view of petitioners’ express admission that they leased from Manotok Services, Incorporated, the Court concluded that petitioners were estopped from asserting that a better title existed in another person, including the State.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s disposition rested on two articulated legal bases. First, it applied the jurisdictional rule on appeal perfection under Rule 41, Section 13, concluding that the appeal was properly dismissed for failure to file the appeal bond within the time allowed. It further treated excusable negligence as absent. Second, it relied on Rule 131, Section 3(b) on tenant estoppel to sustain the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, emphasizing

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms