August 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > August 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 181794 : August 18, 2010] HEIRS OF PAZ AQUINO, NAMELY: LEODIVIDA TURIANO DUMAGAT, ROSALINDA TURIANO CORTEZ, AND EMERITO A. TURIANO, THRU THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT EMERITO TURIANO V. PHILIPPINE PHOENIX SURETY & INSURANCE., INC. :
[G.R. No. 181794 : August 18, 2010]
HEIRS OF PAZ AQUINO, NAMELY: LEODIVIDA TURIANO DUMAGAT, ROSALINDA TURIANO CORTEZ, AND EMERITO A. TURIANO, THRU THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT EMERITO TURIANO V. PHILIPPINE PHOENIX SURETY & INSURANCE., INC.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 18 August 2010 which reads as follows:
G-R. No. 181794 (Heirs of Paz Aquino, Namely: Leodivida Turiano Dumagat, Rosalinda Turiano Cortez, and Emerito A. Turiano, thru their Attorney-in-fact Emerito Turiano v. Philippine Phoenix Surety & Insurance., Inc.) - The instant petition assails the resolution[1] of the Court of Appeals dismissing petitioners' appeal on the ground that the Appellant's Brief did not comply with the Rules of Court.
The facts are as follows:
On December 1, 2003, petitioners filed a Complaint[2] for Annulment of Mortgage, and Reconveyance of Title with Damages against respondent Philippine Phoenix Surety & Insurance, Inc. in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Paranaque, Metro Manila, Branch 194. Petitioners alleged that they are the legal heirs of Paz Aquino who died on August 31, 1990. They claimed that their mother owned a parcel of land situated in Paranaque, containing an area of 1,000 sq m, more or less, registered in her name, under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. (S-5666); that after their mother's death, the TCT could no longer be located; that they learned that the title was entrusted to one Manuel Pelaez who allegedly mortgaged the same to respondent; that the mortgage was, apparently, foreclosed; that the TCT issued in the name of Paz Aquino was cancelled; and that a new title was issued in the name of Philippine Phoenix Surety Insurance under TCT No. 32176 on October 9, 1989. Petitioners alleged that the signature of their mother in the mortgage contract was forged; hence, the foreclosure proceedings were null and void. They prayed for the reconveyance of the subject property and payment of damages.
On February 16, 2004, respondent filed an Answer (with Motion to Dismiss) asserting that the instant action "should be dismissed because it is barred by former judgment and for lack of cause of action.[3] similar complaint had been previously filed in the trial court, docketed as Civil Case No. 98-6164, which was dismissed for petitioners' failure to prosecute. Contrary to petitioners' allegations, the deed of mortgage was executed by Paz Aquino in favor of the respondent and not by one Manuel Pelaez whose name does not appear in the mortgage document.
In their Reply, petitioners denied that they authorized counsel or any person to institute any previous action (Civil Case No. 98-6164) in court.
In an Order dated November 9, 2006, the RTC dismissed the complaint.
A notice of appeal was filed. Subsequently, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal contending that it was served only one (1) copy of the appellants' brief contrary to Section 7, Rule 44 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which requires that two (2) copies of the appellants' brief must be served upon the appellee. Moreover, the Brief did not have a clear and concise statement of the nature of the action involved and it failed to specify page references to the records that would support their factual and case statements and arguments.
In a Resolution dated November 29, 2007, the CA granted the motion and dismissed the appeal outright for non-compliance with Section 1, paragraph (e) and (f), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
The CA stated that the law is clear on the requirements under Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the proper way of preparing the required brief for a speedy disposition of cases, better evaluation and orderly administration of justice. "[Appeals] are merely rights which arise from the statute; therefore, they must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law."[4]
Aggrieved, petitioners filed the instant petition, alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal.
Petitioners assert that there is no hard and fast rule in procedure and invokes the liberality of the application of the rules of procedure.
The petition is denied.
In De Liano v. Court of Appeals[5] the Court amply explained the need for a well prepared brief in court. Long ingrained in our jurisprudence is the rule that the right to appeal is a statutory right and a party who seeks to avail of the right must faithfully comply with the rules. These rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases.[6]
After a perusal of the Appellants' Brief, attached as Annex "G" to the Petition, the Court is convinced that the CA did not commit any reversible error. The respondent court need not be unnecessarily put to task in considering the appeal if only petitioners submitted a more organized Brief.
In any event, a remand of the case to the CA to proceed with the appeal would be an exercise in futility. The records reveal that petitioners are barred from filing another action in court against respondents. On April 1, 1998, petitioners, through Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos of Tabalingcos & Associates Law Office filed an action for reconveyance of title (TCT No. 32176) against respondents in the Regional Trial Court, Paranaque, docketed as Civil Case No. 98-6164.[7] The trial court dismissed the case "in view of the apparent lack of interest on the part of the plaintiffs to prosecute the case."[8] We have held that a dismissal of the case on the ground of failure to prosecute is a final order. It operates as a judgment on the merits.[9]
The claim that petitioners did not authorize Bede S. Tabalingcos or any person to institute the action in their behalf deserves scant consideration. It is a transparent attempt to skirt the inevitable consequences of res judicata.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
G-R. No. 181794 (Heirs of Paz Aquino, Namely: Leodivida Turiano Dumagat, Rosalinda Turiano Cortez, and Emerito A. Turiano, thru their Attorney-in-fact Emerito Turiano v. Philippine Phoenix Surety & Insurance., Inc.) - The instant petition assails the resolution[1] of the Court of Appeals dismissing petitioners' appeal on the ground that the Appellant's Brief did not comply with the Rules of Court.
The facts are as follows:
On December 1, 2003, petitioners filed a Complaint[2] for Annulment of Mortgage, and Reconveyance of Title with Damages against respondent Philippine Phoenix Surety & Insurance, Inc. in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Paranaque, Metro Manila, Branch 194. Petitioners alleged that they are the legal heirs of Paz Aquino who died on August 31, 1990. They claimed that their mother owned a parcel of land situated in Paranaque, containing an area of 1,000 sq m, more or less, registered in her name, under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. (S-5666); that after their mother's death, the TCT could no longer be located; that they learned that the title was entrusted to one Manuel Pelaez who allegedly mortgaged the same to respondent; that the mortgage was, apparently, foreclosed; that the TCT issued in the name of Paz Aquino was cancelled; and that a new title was issued in the name of Philippine Phoenix Surety Insurance under TCT No. 32176 on October 9, 1989. Petitioners alleged that the signature of their mother in the mortgage contract was forged; hence, the foreclosure proceedings were null and void. They prayed for the reconveyance of the subject property and payment of damages.
On February 16, 2004, respondent filed an Answer (with Motion to Dismiss) asserting that the instant action "should be dismissed because it is barred by former judgment and for lack of cause of action.[3] similar complaint had been previously filed in the trial court, docketed as Civil Case No. 98-6164, which was dismissed for petitioners' failure to prosecute. Contrary to petitioners' allegations, the deed of mortgage was executed by Paz Aquino in favor of the respondent and not by one Manuel Pelaez whose name does not appear in the mortgage document.
In their Reply, petitioners denied that they authorized counsel or any person to institute any previous action (Civil Case No. 98-6164) in court.
In an Order dated November 9, 2006, the RTC dismissed the complaint.
A notice of appeal was filed. Subsequently, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal contending that it was served only one (1) copy of the appellants' brief contrary to Section 7, Rule 44 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which requires that two (2) copies of the appellants' brief must be served upon the appellee. Moreover, the Brief did not have a clear and concise statement of the nature of the action involved and it failed to specify page references to the records that would support their factual and case statements and arguments.
In a Resolution dated November 29, 2007, the CA granted the motion and dismissed the appeal outright for non-compliance with Section 1, paragraph (e) and (f), Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
The CA stated that the law is clear on the requirements under Rule 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the proper way of preparing the required brief for a speedy disposition of cases, better evaluation and orderly administration of justice. "[Appeals] are merely rights which arise from the statute; therefore, they must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law."[4]
Aggrieved, petitioners filed the instant petition, alleging that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal.
Petitioners assert that there is no hard and fast rule in procedure and invokes the liberality of the application of the rules of procedure.
The petition is denied.
In De Liano v. Court of Appeals[5] the Court amply explained the need for a well prepared brief in court. Long ingrained in our jurisprudence is the rule that the right to appeal is a statutory right and a party who seeks to avail of the right must faithfully comply with the rules. These rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases.[6]
After a perusal of the Appellants' Brief, attached as Annex "G" to the Petition, the Court is convinced that the CA did not commit any reversible error. The respondent court need not be unnecessarily put to task in considering the appeal if only petitioners submitted a more organized Brief.
In any event, a remand of the case to the CA to proceed with the appeal would be an exercise in futility. The records reveal that petitioners are barred from filing another action in court against respondents. On April 1, 1998, petitioners, through Atty. Bede S. Tabalingcos of Tabalingcos & Associates Law Office filed an action for reconveyance of title (TCT No. 32176) against respondents in the Regional Trial Court, Paranaque, docketed as Civil Case No. 98-6164.[7] The trial court dismissed the case "in view of the apparent lack of interest on the part of the plaintiffs to prosecute the case."[8] We have held that a dismissal of the case on the ground of failure to prosecute is a final order. It operates as a judgment on the merits.[9]
The claim that petitioners did not authorize Bede S. Tabalingcos or any person to institute the action in their behalf deserves scant consideration. It is a transparent attempt to skirt the inevitable consequences of res judicata.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
�(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Justice Jose C. Reyes Jr., with Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal, concurring.
[2] Docketed as Civil Case No. 03-0552; rollo, p. 88.
[3] Rollo, p. 109.
[4] Rollo, p. 35.
[5] 421 Phil. 1033, 1035(2001).
[6] Id., at p. 368.
[7] Rollo, p. 115.
[8] Rollo, p. 122.
[9] Ma Rosario Suarez v. Judge Martin Villarama, G.R. No, 324512, June 27, 2006.
