Title
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 210233
Decision Date
Feb 15, 2016
The Republic sought land reversion due to fraud; CA dismissed appeal without notifying OSG, violating due process. SC reinstated appeal, citing grave abuse of discretion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 210233)

Petitioner

Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General

Respondents

Spouses Rodolfo and Belen Sy, Lolita Sy, and Spouses Teodorico and Leah Adarna

Key Dates

• March 29, 1988 – Action filed by the Republic for cancellation of sales patents and reversion of lands alleged to have been acquired by fraud.
• October 10, 2007 – RTC renders judgment dismissing the Republic’s complaint.
• November 23, 2007 – Republic, via DENR Region VII Legal Division, files notice of appeal.
• December 1, 2009 – Court of Appeals’ notice to file brief received by DENR legal counsel.
• May 6, 2011 – CA dismisses appeal for failure to file appellant’s brief.
• June 1, 2011 – OSG files motion for reconsideration.
• September 14, 2011 – CA grants motion and reinstates appeal, giving new periods to file briefs.
• July 5, 2012 – CA dismisses appeal again for failure to file brief.
• August 21, 2012 – CA enters judgment of dismissal.
• August 20, 2013 – CA issues resolution declaring its July 5, 2012 dismissal final.
• February 15, 2016 – Supreme Court issues decision on petition for certiorari.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article III, Section 1 – Due process)
• Rule 65, Rules of Court (certiorari jurisdiction)
• Administrative Code of 1987, Book IV, Title III, Chapter 12, Section 35 (OSG’s powers and functions)

Factual Background

The Republic, through the OSG, sought cancellation of several miscellaneous sales patents and titles issued to the respondents, alleging fraud and misrepresentation in land acquisition. The RTC upheld the validity of the patents and dismissed the complaint on October 10, 2007. The Republic filed a timely notice of appeal, and the CA directed the appointment of appellant’s brief. The brief was never filed. The CA initially dismissed the appeal on May 6, 2011, but on motion by the OSG granted reconsideration on September 14, 2011 and reinstated the appeal with fresh briefing periods. The OSG, however, was never furnished copies of the CA’s September 14, 2011 Resolution or subsequent orders. Instead, those resolutions were sent to the DENR legal counsel acting as OSG’s surrogate. On July 5, 2012, the CA dismissed the appeal again for failure to file a brief; on August 21, 2012, it entered judgment; and on August 20, 2013, it declared the dismissal final. The OSG learned of these developments only after a DENR indorsement dated September 27, 2013.

Issue

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the Republic’s appeal for failure to file a brief, despite the principal counsel (OSG) not having been served with the CA orders reinstating the appeal and affording new periods to file briefs.

Ruling

The petition for certiorari is granted. The CA Resolutions dated July 5, 2012 and August 20, 2013, and the Entry of Judgment dated August 21, 2012, are annulled and set aside. The Republic’s appeal is reinstated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

Legal Analysis

  1. OSG as Principal Counsel
    – Section 35 of the Administrative Code of 1987 designates the OSG as the Republic’s official counsel in all civil actions and land registration proceedings. The OSG remains counsel of record until final resolution. A deputized legal office (DENR Region VII) acts only as surrogate.

  2. Due Process and Notice
    – The essence of due process is notice and an opportunity to be heard. Private and public litigants al



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms