Case Summary (G.R. No. 215599)
Factual Background and Antecedent Proceedings
The Court of Appeals, in its earlier Decision dated August 19, 2013, narrated that the dispute centered on the subject property, with the petitioners claiming ownership through long possession. On August 1, 1995, the petitioners Heirs of Francisco filed a Complaint for Annulment of Title, Reconveyance of Real Property and Damages with a Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Zamboanga City, against Wellington Velasco and Dr. Emiliano Torralba.
The petitioners alleged that they were heirs of the late Jaime Francisco, whom they claimed was the original occupant and owner of the subject property since 1918, and that after Jaime Francisco’s death in 1957, the petitioners as heirs continued to occupy and reside on the land under a claim of ownership in open, exclusive, adverse, and continuous possession for an aggregate period of seventy-seven (77) years. For his part, Torralba claimed that he was designated by Velasco as caretaker, and he denied that he represented Velasco as a lawful representative. Velasco later filed an Answer with counterclaim, asserting absolute ownership in fee simple, alleging unlawful disturbance by the petitioners, contending that the petitioners’ claim had been waived or extinguished through a Deed of Quitclaim executed on July 8, 1968, and further asserting that reconveyance premised on fraud under the Land Registration Act prescribed in four (4) years from the issuance of the certificate of title. Velasco also invoked res judicata, alleging that the same cause of action had been decided in the case Francisco Dagalea vs. Wellington Velasco, docketed as MNR Case No. 6099, which had become final and executory on May 2, 1983, and that on October 3, 1983, the NLTDRA issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-3,760 in his favor.
RTC Disposition and Basis for Appeal
On July 28, 2009, the private respondents filed a Motion for Demurrer to Evidence, which the RTC granted through an order dated November 26, 2009. The RTC dismissed the action for insufficiency of evidence and reasoned that the action filed was not the proper remedy based on the facts and circumstances, stating that it should have been one for reversion, which, according to the RTC, could only be initiated by the Solicitor General as mandated by law. Dissatisfied, the petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, challenging the RTC’s order of dismissal.
Court of Appeals Decision and Finality Events
In its Decision dated August 19, 2013, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioners’ appeal for lack of merit. The petitioners acknowledged that they received the CA Decision on September 30, 2013, and thus admitted that they had until October 16, 2013 to file a Motion for Reconsideration. The petitioners maintained that they filed their Motion for Reconsideration dated October 15, 2013 via courier service on October 16, 2013.
However, the Court of Appeals found that the Motion for Reconsideration was filed only on December 6, 2013, and it denied the motion outright. The CA held that the period to file a Motion for Reconsideration is not extendible. It then directed the Division Clerk of Court to issue an Entry of Judgment, on the premise that the August 19, 2013 Decision had attained finality due to the lack of a timely motion for reconsideration and no timely petition filed with the Supreme Court.
The Petition and the Issue Presented
The petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, alleging that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. They presented a singular issue: whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion when it (1) denied outright their Motion for Reconsideration for alleged failure to timely file it, and (2) ordered an Entry of Judgment based on that supposed failure.
The private respondents filed a Comment on April 28, 2015, and later a Manifestation and Motion to Deny Petition on February 29, 2016. The Court required a reply from the petitioners on April 19, 2016, but the petitioners did not file the required reply.
Court’s Ruling in the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court denied the petition for utter lack of merit and affirmed the Court of Appeals Resolution dated August 20, 2014. The Court emphasized that, in a Rule 65 proceeding, the alleged abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross that it amounts to evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to an arbitrary and despotic exercise of power.
Legal Basis and Reasoning on Timeliness and Manner of Filing
The Court first underscored that under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, there were only two recognized modes for filing pleadings: personal filing by presenting original copies to the clerk of court, or filing by registered mail. The petitioners admitted that they did not file their Motion for Reconsideration through personal filing and instead filed it through a private courier/courier service. The Court held that filing via private courier or courier service was not a manner of filing allowed or recognized by the Rules of Court. It ruled that this alone justified dismissal of the petition.
Even assuming, for argument’s sake, that the Court could accept courier filing as an alternative mode, the Court found the motion still fatally defective for untimeliness. The Court relied on Rule 52 of the Rules of Court, as well as Rule 7 of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, which required that a motion for reconsideration of an appellate judgment or final resolution be filed only within fifteen (15) days from notice and with proof of service on the adverse party. The Court noted that, since the petitioners received the CA Decision on September 30, 2013, their motion should have been filed by October 16, 2013.
The Court of Appeals had found that the Motion for Reconsideration was filed on December 6, 2013, or nearly two months beyond the deadline. The Supreme Court invoked the evidence rule that the burden of proof lay on the party who asserted a fact. It ruled that the petitioners bore the burden of refuting the CA’s factual finding and substantiating their claim that they couriered the pleading on October 16, 2013. The Court held that the petitioners failed to present any evidence other than their own self-serving allegation to show that the motion was couriered on the stated date. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to rely on the petitioners’ mere claims to repudiate the Court of Appeals’ clear finding that the Motion for Reconsideration was filed only on December 6, 2013.
The Cour
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 215599)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- The petitioners were Heirs of Geminiano Francisco, Heirs of Marciano Francisco, Heirs of Isidora Dagal ea, Heirs of Presentacion F. Braganza, Igmidio Francisco, Donato Francisco, and Perfecta F. Garcia, represented by their respective representatives and heirs.
- The respondents were the Hon. Court of Appeals Special Former Twenty Second (22nd) Division, Wellington Velasco, and his attorney-in-fact Dr. Emiliano Torralba.
- The petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assailing the Court of Appeals Resolution dated August 20, 2014.
- The assailed Court of Appeals Resolution denied outright the petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration as filed beyond the reglementary period.
- The assailed Resolution directed the Division Clerk of Court to issue an Entry of Judgment, based on the finality of the CA Decision dated August 19, 2013.
- The Court denied the petition for utter lack of merit, affirming the CA Resolution.
Key Factual Allegations
- The dispute involved a parcel of land at Lot No. 9, Cad. 124, Boalan, Zamboanga City, with an area of twenty (20) hectares.
- On August 1, 1995, the petitioners filed a Complaint for Annulment of Title, Reconveyance of Real Property and Damages with a prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Zamboanga City, against Wellington Velasco and Dr. Emiliano Torralba.
- The petitioners claimed they were heirs of the late Jaime Francisco, whom they asserted was the original occupant and owner since 1918 until death in 1957, and thus for more than thirty (30) years.
- The petitioners further alleged that after his death, they continued occupying the subject property and established residence under a claim of ownership in open, exclusive, adverse, and continuous occupation for a total of seventy-seven (77) years.
- Torralba, in his Answer, asserted that he was designated as caretaker by Velasco and denied being Velasco’s lawful representative.
- Velasco, in his Answer with counterclaim, asserted ownership in fee simple and alleged that petitioners’ possession was unlawfully disturbed.
- Velasco averred that petitioners’ claims were waived or extinguished by a Deed of Quitclaim dated July 8, 1968.
- Velasco also invoked prescription, arguing that reconveyance of property under the Land Registration Act on grounds of fraud prescribes in four (4) years from issuance of the certificate of title.
- Velasco invoked res judicata, citing a prior case Francisco Dagalea vs. Wellington Velasco, docketed as MNR Case No. 6099, allegedly final on May 2, 1983.
- Velasco alleged that on October 3, 1983, NLT DRA issued Original Certificate of Title No. P-3,760 in his favor.
RTC Proceedings and Appeal
- The respondents filed a Motion for Demurrer to Evidence which the RTC granted on November 26, 2009.
- The RTC dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence and held that the action was not the proper remedy based on the facts alleged.
- The RTC reasoned that the case should have been an action for reversion, which it stated may only be initiated by the Solicitor General as mandated by law.
- The petitioners appealed the RTC Order dismissing their Complaint to the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals Decision
- In a Decision dated August 19, 2013, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
- The petitioners received a copy of the CA Decision on September 30, 2013.
- The petitioners admitted they had until October 16, 2013 to file a Motion for Reconsideration.
- The petitioners claimed they served and filed their Motion for Reconsideration dated October 15, 2013 via courier service on October 16, 2013.
- The Court of Appeals found, in the assailed Resolution, that the Motion for Reconsideration was filed only on December 6, 2013.
- The CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration outright, reasoning that the filing period for such motion is not extendible.
- The CA directed issuance of an Entry of Judgment, considering finality of the August 19, 2013 Decision due to the lack of a timely filed Motion for Reconsideration or petition to the Supreme Court.