Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 190745^[*] (Lourdes T. Buhay v. Letecia A. Buhay-Dela Pe�a)
 

RESOLUTION 

This case is about the dismissal of an appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA) for filing the motion for extension to file the appellant's brief beyond the period sought to be extended and for late filing of the appellant's brief itself, which discussed the merits of petitioner's claim of illegitimate filiation to her alleged deceased father.

The Facts and the Case 

The spouses Ernesto and Fe Buhay, together with their daughter, respondent Letecia A. Buhay-Dela Pe�a (Letecia), lived in Daet, Camarines Norte. In the 1970's, Ernesto ventured into the fishing business in Pasacao, Camarines Sur. On occasions when he went home to Daet to be with his family, his brother, Alberto, looked after the business.

Ernesto and Fe acquired during their marriage (a) a house and lot in Daet, Camarines Norte covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) T-8050;^[1] (b) a lot in the same municipality covered by TCT T-29050;^[2] (c) a commercial lot covered by Tax Declaration 007-0798;^[3] (d) a lot covered by TCT 3080;^[4]  and (e) a 2-storey building also in Daet, declared under TD/ARP 007-0818.^[5]

In 1995, Fe passed away^[6] without a will. Ernesto died^[7] a year after also without a will. As a consequence, their daughter Letecia transferred all of her parents' properties in her name^[8] by executing an affidavit of self-adjudication,^[9] she being their sole heir.

In 1999, however, petitioner Lourdes T. Buhay (Lourdes), claiming to be Ernesto's illegitimate daughter, filed an action for quieting of title, recovery of hereditary share, and accounting with damages against Letecia before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Daet (Branch 41) in Civil Case 7001.

Lourdes alleged that she was born on April 27, 1972 in Pasacao, Camarines Sur, to Ernesto and her mother, Fe Salome Trinidad (Trinidad). Ernesto signed Lourdes' Certificate of Live Birth as her father and informant. Lourdes also presented a copy of her registration of birth that the Office of the Civil Registrar of Pasacao, Camarines Sur, issued. This listed down Ernesto as her father. Lourdes claimed that she and her parents lived in San Cirilo, Pasacao, until she was 7 years old. They were forced to move to Naga City afterwards because her father's legitimate wife, Fe, went to their house in San Cirilo and created a scene.^[10]

Further, Lourdes alleged that throughout his lifetime, her father Ernesto recognized her as his daughter considering that (a) he would introduce her as such and she was known at her school as his daughter;^[11]  (b) he would attend her Parent-Teacher Association meetings;^[12] (c) he gave her the name Lourdes because he wanted it to begin with the letter "L" like Letecia, his legitimate daughter's name;^[13]  (d) he attended her 8^th birthday party as evidenced by a snapshot taken of her, flanked by Ernesto and Trinidad.^[14]

On the other hand, Letecia, and her witnesses, namely, her uncle Alberto and a former house help, Teresita Sapurco (Teresita),^[15]  gave a different story. According to them, they knew Trinidad and her daughter, Lourdes, because Trinidad used to work as Ernesto's helper in his household in 1977 or 1978, first at Daet for about a month, before Letecia went to Manila to study for two years. At this time, Lourdes, then 5 to 6 years old, would come to visit and at times stay with her mother, Trinidad.^[16] It was common knowledge and Trinidad never hid the fact that the father of her daughter was Arnulfo Hernandez (Arnulfo), her former employer.^[17] In fact, according to Letecia, it was Arnulfo's own daughter who disclosed this information to her.^[18]

For his part, Alberto testified that his brother Ernesto told him in confidence of his secret affair with Trinidad.^[19]  After pondering on this information, Alberto decided to tell Fe about her husband's relationship with their helper.^[20] On learning of it, Fe went to Pasacao and confronted the two. Later, Ernesto told Alberto that he registered Lourdes as his daughter so she could carry his surname Buhay.^[21]

While Letecia conceded that her father had an affair with Trinidad, she denied that Lourdes, Trinidad's daughter, was Ernesto's illegitimate daughter. Letecia pointed out that Lourdes had another birth certificate, registered in 1972. This stated that Lourdes was born in Talisay, Camarines Norte, and that her father was Amador de los Santos.^[22] Letecia explained that according to Arnulfo's wife, Trinidad merely made it appear that her child's father was someone else.^[23] Amador de los Santos was actually Lourdes' grandfather. Moreover, according to a copy of Lourdes� baptismal certificate, she was baptized in the Parish of St. Rafael de Arcangel in Basud.^[24] What further made Lourdes' claim dubious was that she did not present her mother who would have been in the best position to attest to Lourdes' parentage.

On July 25, 2008 the RTC dismissed the case for failure of Lourdes to prove her illegitimate filiation by either record of birth or an open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child. She presented two birth certificates, one which stated the child's name as "Lourdes Salome Trinidad." This was registered on April 28, 1972 in Talisay, Camarines Norte. Another birth certificate gave the child's name as "Lourdes Trinidad Buhay." This was registered on April 27, 1972 in Pasacao, Camarines Sur. Lourdes insisted that the latter document was her birth certificate. But this bare allegations, said the RTC, sans her mother's testimony, failed to convince it that the document was her only record of birth and that she had been originally registered as Lourdes Trinidad Buhay.

Regarding her claim of open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child, the RTC said, invoking Article 175 of the Family Code and Tayag v. Court of Appeals,^[25] that a claim of filiation must be brought within the lifetime of the alleged parent. Here, however, Lourdes filed her claim three years after Ernesto's death.

Lourdes appealed the RTC decision to the CA in CA-G.R. CV 91985.

On May 25, 2009 Lourdes' lawyer, Atty. Santiago Ceneta received from the CA a notice to file appellant's brief within 45 days from notice or until July 9, 2009. On July 17, 2009 Atty. Ceneta filed a belated very urgent motion for extension of time to file appellant's brief asking for an additional extension of 45 days. Before the end of the 45 days or on August 21, 2009, Atty. Ceneta filed an ex parte motion to admit the attached plaintiff-appellant's brief. 

In a resolution dated August 27, 2009,^[26] the CA denied the motion for extension and Lourdes' appeal. According to the CA, an extension for filing of briefs is generally not allowed except for good and sufficient cause and only if the motion for extension is filed before the expiration of the time sought to be extended.^[27] Atty. Ceneta, however, did not state any valid reason for belatedly filing the appellant's brief nor did he file it within the period stated in the rules.

On September 8, 2009 the CA also denied with finality^[28] Lourdes' motion to admit appellant's brief and reiterated the dismissal of the case. The CA reminded petitioner that rulings on motions for extension are solely based on the court's discretion.^[29]  Further, an appeal is a mere statutory privilege thus, the party who seeks it must follow the prescribed procedure.^[30]

On September 17, 2009 Atty. Ceneta asked the CA to reconsider its August 27, 2009 resolution denying both the motion for extension and the appeal. He said that a stringent application of the procedural rules would result to an outright deprivation of his client's property. Also, the CA must consider that he had already filed the appellant's brief. Besides, counsel filed the jurisdictional requirement of notice of appeal and paid the appeal fee within the reglementary period.^[31]

On October 1, 2009 Atty. Ceneta also filed a motion to reconsider the CA resolution dated September 8, 2009.^[32] He reiterated that, though he was late in filing the brief, the court should set aside the procedural lapse and resolve the significant substantive issues raised.

On December 14, 2009 the CA denied the twin motions for reconsideration based on the following: 1) it already denied with finality similar motions previously filed by Atty. Ceneta; and 2) "inadvertence and oversight"^[33] are not valid reasons for non-compliance with procedural requirements.

Hence, this appeal.^[34]

The Issue Presented

The issue presented in this case is whether or not the CA correctly dismissed Lourdes' appeal before it on the ground of late filing of her appellant's brief, given that the CA had already denied her motion for extension to file appellant's brief because this was filed after the expiration of the time sought to be extended.

The Ruling of the Court

It is clear that Lourdes failed to follow the prescribed procedure. Her counsel did not file her motion for extension of time to file appellant's brief before the expiration of the time she sought to extend contrary to Section 12 of Rule 44. Consequently, she filed that brief beyond the period provided by the rules.^[35]

Still, it must be borne in mind that the filing of the appellant's brief is not a jurisdictional requirement.^[36] The expiration of the time to file a brief, unlike lateness in filing the notice of appeal, appeal bond, or record on appeal, is not a jurisdictional matter and may be waived by the parties. Even after the expiration of the time fixed for the filing of the brief, the reviewing court may grant an extension of time, at least where no motion to dismiss has been filed.^[37]

Late filing or service of briefs may be excused where no material injury has been suffered by the appellee by reason of the delay or where there is no contention that the appellee's cause has been prejudiced.^[38] Here, Lourdes filed her appellant's brief under a motion to admit within the additional 45 days that she belatedly asked for. This extension is not too substantial considering that, in practice, the CA has allowed extensions of up to 90 days in addition to the original period for filing a brief. The court has the power to relax or suspend the rules or to except a case from their operation when compelling reasons so warrant, or when the purpose of justice requires it.^[39]

In this case, Lourdes claims that she is entitled to recognition as Ernesto's illegitimate daughter on two grounds a) Ernesto voluntarily recognized her in her record of birth^[40]  and b) she enjoyed an open and continuous possession of status of an illegitimate child as she narrated, supported by photos taken of her with Ernesto and her mother.

The above appear to be substantial grounds for the CA to consider. Letecia of course presented another birth certificate,^[41] insisting that this was Lourdes' real birth certificate. On its face, the document appears to be for a child by the name of Lourdes Salome Trinidad born on April 28, 1972 and whose parents were Amador de los Santos Trinidad and Lucena Tapar Salome. Letecia insists that Amador de los Santos was actually Lourdes' grandfather and the informant, Trinidad, was her real mother.

Now both certificates, being public documents, are presumed valid^[42]  and are prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated in them.^[43] To do justice to the parties, the appellate court would have to determine their respective evidentiary value, in whom lies the burden of disproving what they state, and whether such burden has been discharged. The appeal presents substantial issues that warrant some leniency in the application of the technical rules for filing the appellant's brief.

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES the ruling of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 91985 dated August 27, 2009, September 8, 2009, and December 14, 2009, all denying petitioner's appeal, DIRECTS the same court to give due course to the appeal, and DECIDE the same on its merits.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
  Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^{[* ]} J. Peralta, on official leave. J. Carpio, additional member, per Special Order 1029 dated June 30, 2011; J. Mendoza, no part. J. Del Castillo, additional member, per raffle dated June 7, 2010; J.  Sereno, additional member, per Special Order 1028 dated June 21, 2011.

^[1] Records, pp. 11, 97. 

^[2] Id. at 13, 97. 

^[3] Id. at 12, 97. 

^[4] Id. at 97. 

^[5] Id. at 15, 98. 

^[6] Id. at 97. 

^[7] Id. 

^[8] Id at 3, 20, 22, 24; Complaint: TCT No. T-40451 in the name of Letecia A. Buhay-Dela Pe�a was issued in lieu of TCT T-8050 in the name of Ernesto Buhay and Fe Abiera; TCT T-40452 in the name of Letecia A Buhay-Dela Pe�a was issued in lieu of TCT T-29050; Tax Declaration 007-0913 in the name of Letecia A. Buhay-Dela Pe�a was issued in lieu of TD/ARP 007-0818. 

^[9] Id. at 18. 

^[10]  TSN, February 8, 2001, p. 37. 

^[11]  Id. at 39-40. 

^[12]  Id. at 41. 

^[13]  Id. at 69-70. 

^[14]  Id. at 83-84. 

^[15]  TSN, August 14, 2003, p. 6. 

^[16]  Id. at 7-10. 

^[17]  Id. at 27. 

^[18]  TSN, April 29, 2004, pp. 19, 23. 

^[19] TSN, May 30, 2002, p. 35. 

^[20] Id. at 34, 64. 

^[21]  Id. at 81. 

^[22]  Id. at 87. 

^[23]  TSN, April 29, 2004, p. 33. 

^[24]  TSN, July 1, 2004, p. 7. 

^[25]  G.R. No. 95229, June 9, 1992, 209 SCRA 665, 673. 

^[26] Rollo, pp. 38-39, penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Mendoza and Jane Aurora C. Lantion. 

^[27]  RULES OF COURT, Rule 44, Section 12. 

^[28]  Rollo, pp. 43-44. 

^[29] Aoanan, Sr, v. Aoanan, Jr., G.R. No. 164220, April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 631, 639. 

^[30]  El Reyno Homes, Inc. v. Ong, 445 Phil. 610, 619 (2003). 

^[31]  Rollo, pp. 40-42. 

^[32]  The CA denied the motion to admit appellant's brief and reiterated the dismissal of the case. 

^[33]  Gachon v. Devera, Jr., G.R. No. 116695, June 20, 1997, 274 SCRA 540, 550: Oversight, at best, implies negligence, at worst ignorance. 

^[34] Rollo, pp. 9-20. 

^[35]  Section 1(e), Rule 50. 

^[36]  Heirs of Victoriana Villagracia v. Equitable Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 136972, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 60, 68, citing Republic v. Imperial, Jr., 362 Phil. 466, 476 (1999). 

^[37]  Natonton v. Magaway, G.R. No. 147011, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 199, 204, citing the case of Carco Motor Sales, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 168 Phil. 682, 685 (1977). 

^[38] Natonton v. Magaway, id. 

^[39] Heirs of Victoriana Villagracia v. Equitable Banking Corporation, supra note 36. 

^[40]  Records, p. 36. 

^[41]  Id. at 33. 

^[42] Baldos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 170645, July 9, 2010, 624 SCRA 615, 621, citing Yturralde v. Vagilidad, 138 Phil. 416, 425 (1969).

^[43] Baldos v. Court of Appeals, id., citing Sec. 13, Act 3753, otherwise known as the Civil Registry Law.