Mega Fishing Corporation vs. Estate of Francisco Felipe N. Gonzales,
G.R. No. 214781, March 9, 2022
Facts:
1. Deceased Francisco Felipe Gonzales y Narciso owned a parcel of land. He sold it to Gabriel Gonzales III, by virtue of deed of sale. Which was, on the same day transferred to in the name of Esperanza G. Consigna.
2. A certain Mercedita Valenciana (Mercedita), acting in a representative capacity for and in behalf of Esperanza, executed an affidavit of loss of the TCT of the subject parcel of land. Claiming to be the beneficial owner of the properties covered by the said titles, Esperanza, through Mercedita, filed a petition for the reconstitution of the owner's duplicate copies of the titles with the RTC.
3. The original copy of the TCT was annotated reflecting the issuance of a new owner's duplicate copy pursuant to the RTC Order.
4. Then, petitioner Mega Fishing Corporation (MFC) purchased the subject property from Esperanza for P9,601,920.00 by virtue of a Kasulatan ng Ganap at lubos na Bilihan. Accordingly, the TCT was cancelled and a new TCT was issued in the name of MFC.
5. Then the estate of Francisco Felipe N. Gonzales, through Teresita, filed a case against Esperanza, Mercedita, MFC, Vicente Garcia (Garcia), and Sarah Principe, seeking to annul and cancel the new TCT, and the reinstatement of the old TCT.
6. RTC: the RTC ruled in favor of the respondent. It found that the new owner's duplicate copy of the TCT in the name of Francisco Felipe Gonzales was null and void for being fraudulently obtained.
a. The RTC found that MFC was not a buyer in good faith for its failure to discharge the burden of proving the same.
7. MFC filed a motion for reconsideration of the RTC Decision but it was later denied. Thus, MFC filed a notice of appeal.
8. CA: the CA required MFC to file its appellant's brief
9. MFC filed a motion to be given the opportunity to file its file appeal brief. It alleged that it received the notice dated August 15, 2013 sometime in September and had until October 15, 2013 within which to file its brief However, MFC only discovered the said notice which was apparently filed in another case folder during their year-end inventory in December 2013. Thus, MFC asked for an additional period of 30 days from December 19, 2013, or until January 19, 2014, within which to file its brief, which the CA later granted.
10. On February 6, 2014, MFC filed its motion to admit appellant's brief (with attached copy of the appellant's brief). In its first assailed March 28, 2014 Resolution, the CA denied MFC's motion. It held that MFC failed to file its brief within the reglementary period. It noted that despite the grant of an extension of time to file, it only filed its brief on February 6, 2014 or 18 days after the last day of extension granted by the CA.
11. On July 22, 2014, the CA issued a Resolution closing and terminating the case in view of the fact that no motion for reconsideration and/or petition to the Court was filed by MFC.
12. On August 22, 2014, MFC filed a motion for reconsideration and a supplemental motion for reconsideration which the CA later denied in its October 14, 2014 Resolution.
13. The CA noted that MFC received the March 28, 2014 Resolution on April 14, 2014 but only filed its motion for reconsideration on August 22, 2014 or more than three months after the lapse of the 15-day period within which to submit a motion for reconsideration.
14. On November 3, 2014, MFC filed a motion for extension of time to file petition for review on certiorari which was granted by the Supreme Court in its February 4, 2015 Resolution.
Issue:
Whether or not there is grave abuse of discretion committed by the CA when it did not allow MFC’s appeal brief and ordered the closure and termination of the case
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
Yes. Generally, the rules of procedure must be strictly followed because "the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. A party who seeks to avail of the right must, therefore, comply with the requirements of the rules, failing which the right to appeal is invariably lost."
The Supreme Court stressed that the Court "cannot look with favor on a course of action which would place the administration of justice in a straightjacket, for then the result would be a poor kind of justice if there would be justice at all."
In the same vein, the Supreme Court find that MFC should be afforded the amplest opportunity for its case to be decided on the merits and not on mere technicalities. When MFC filed its motion with the attached appellant's brief, it was a clear indication that it did not abandon its appeal.
We have previously allowed the relaxation of these rigid rules of procedure in order to serve substantial justice in considering
a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property;
b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances;
c) the merits of the case;
d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules;
e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; or
f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
This Court notes that MFC stands to lose its property rights due to a technicality for the belated filing of its appellant's brief attributed to its former counsel 's negligence. The Supreme Court are of the view that the belated filing of its brief was an honest mistake and not an attempt to delay the proceedings of the case.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment