Case Summary (G.R. No. 140473)
Key Dates
• December 14, 1994 – Sale of Lot No. 377 by Engracia Macaraya to Tigle.
• February 29, 1996 – Tigle files unlawful detainer (Civil Case No. 1062).
• June 2, 1997 – MCTC enters judgment for Tigle.
• February 16, 1998 – RTC directs submission of memoranda.
• October 6, 1998 – RTC dismisses Enriquez’s appeal for failure to file memorandum.
• July 20, 1999 – Court of Appeals denies petition, affirms dismissal.
• January 28, 2003 – Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision made post-1990).
• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 40, Section 7 – requirement and mandatory nature of appellate memoranda.
Procedural History
Victorina Tigle commenced an ejectment action in the MCTC of Bayawan-Basay against Melba Enriquez. The MCTC ruled in favor of Tigle. Enriquez appealed to the RTC, which ordered memoranda be filed within fifteen days. Enriquez failed to file a memorandum; the RTC dismissed her appeal and denied reconsideration. Enriquez then petitioned the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC. This petition to the Supreme Court followed.
Factual Background
Enriquez occupied the property by tolerance of Engracia Macaraya, one of several heirs of the original owner. Macaraya sold the entire parcel to Tigle despite co-ownership by other heirs, and Tigle demanded that Enriquez vacate. Enriquez counterclaimed that Macaraya could only sell her 1/7 share, not the entire lot.
MCTC Decision
The MCTC found Tigle to be in prior, actual, and physical possession of the 179-sqm lot, ordered Enriquez to vacate and demolish improvements, and awarded Tigle litigation expenses (P3,000) and attorney’s fees (P10,000). Enriquez’s counterclaim was dismissed.
RTC Proceedings
The RTC of Dumaguete City directed both parties to submit memoranda. Enriquez’s counsel did not file a memorandum. Pursuant to Rule 40, Section 7(b), the RTC dismissed her appeal for failure to file the required memorandum and denied her motion for reconsideration, noting no manifestation that her position paper in the MCTC served as her appellate memorandum.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 50360). The CA found that under Rule 40, Section 7, filing of the appellant’s memorandum is mandatory; failure to comply mandates dismissal. It denied Enriquez’s petition and subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Issue
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion by dismissing Enriquez’s appeal for failure to file a memorandum instead of deciding the appeal on the merits under Rule 40, Section 7(c).
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decisions of the RTC and Court of Appeals.
Rationale
- Mandatory Nature of Memorandum – Rule 40, Section 7(b) requires the appellant to submit a memorandum within fifteen days; failure “shall be a ground for dismissal.” The use of
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 140473)
Facts of the Case
- On February 29, 1996, Victorina Tigle filed Civil Case No. 1062 for unlawful detainer against Melba Moncal Enriquez before the MCTC of Bayawan–Basay, Negros Oriental.
- Tigle alleged that she acquired Lot No. 377, Tinego, Bayawan, Negros Oriental, from Engracia Macaraya on December 14, 1994, and that Enriquez had occupied the property by mere tolerance of Macaraya.
- Enriquez was offered an option to buy the lot but declined; Tigle demanded possession after purchase, which Enriquez refused.
- In her answer with counterclaim, Enriquez asserted that the property was co-owned by the heirs of Felix Moncal and that Macaraya could only convey her undivided one-seventh share, which was not identified and thus not subject to ejectment under Article 434 of the Civil Code.
Decision of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
- On June 2, 1997, the MCTC rendered judgment in favor of Tigle, declaring her in actual, physical, and prior possession of “Sub-Lot No. 2-A of Lot No. 2,” measuring 179 sq. m.
- The court ordered Enriquez, her agents, and representatives to vacate the premises and remove all unauthorized improvements.
- Enriquez was directed to pay Tigle ₱3,000 for litigation expenses and ₱10,000 for attorney’s fees.
- Compensation for use and occupation was deemed waived for failure to plead; moral and exemplary damages and counterclaims were dismissed.
Appeal to the Regional Trial Court
- Enriquez appealed to the RTC of Dumaguete City (Civil Case No. 12044).
- On February 16, 1998, the RTC ordered both parties to submit memoranda within fifteen days, pursuant to Rule 40, Section 7(b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Enriquez failed to file her memorandum within the reglementary period.
- On October 6, 1998, the RTC dismissed her appeal for failure to comply and remanded the records for execution.
- E