June 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 179902 : June 27, 2012]
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. RODOLFO PASCUAL, SR. & RODOLFO PASCUAL, JR.
G.R. No. 179902 (Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Rodolfo Pascual, Sr. & Rodolfo Pascual, Jr.).
RESOLUTION
On February 19, 1973 Rodolfo Pascual, Sr. got a P45,000.00 loan from the Philippine Banking Corporation, the predecessor-in-interest of petitioner Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (the Bank),[1] which he secured with two lands in General Santos City registered in his name under Transfer Certificates of Title T-5859 and,T-4199.[2] The parties caused the registration of the mortgage with the Register of Deeds on February 21, 1973.[3] Rodolfo Sr. turned over his owner's duplicate copy of the titles to the Bank.
On February 19, 1979 Rodolfo Sr. settled his P45,000.00 loan with the Bank[4] but it declined to release his titles since he still had not paid a letter of credit accommodation that the Bank gave him.[5] The next day, February 20, Rodolfo Sr. sold the two lots to his son, respondent Rodolfo Pascual, Jr. for Pl,000.00.[6] On February 21 Rodolfo Jr. went to the Register of Deeds of General Santos City and requested it to register the deed of sale in his favor. The Register of Deeds entered the deed on its Primary Entry Book and annotated the sale on its copy of TCT T-5859 but not on TCT T-4199. But the Register of Deeds later cancelled the entries it made on TCT T-5859 when the Pascuals failed to present the owner's duplicate copy of that title as promised.[7]
Because Rodolfo Sr. failed to pay his letter of credit obligation, on September 24, 1979 the Bank filed a collection suit against him in Civil Case 2069 of the Court of First Instance of South Cotabato, which the court decided in its favor.[8] Upon finality of the decision, the court issued a writ of execution that the sheriff enforced by levying on the two lands that Rodolfo Sr. sold to his son.[9] The Register of Deeds inscribed the writ and the levy on Rodolfo Sr.'s uncancelled titles on September 25, 1980.[10]
Eventually, the sheriff sold the two lands at public auction to the Bank as the highest bidder and issued a certificate of sale in its favor, which certificate the Bank caused to be registered on April 2, 1981.[11] After the lapse of the redemption period, the sheriff executed a final deed of sale in favor of the Bank resulting in the issuance of new titles covering the two lands in its name on July 27, 1983.[12]
Claiming that the issuance of new titles to the Bank impaired his titles to and ownership of the two lands, Rodolfo Sr. filed a complaint for injunction and cancellation of titles and damages with prayer for a temporary restraining order against the Bank before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of General Santos City.[13] Rodolfo Sr. claimed that the Bank's titles were void because it acquired them after he had already sold the lands to his son. On August 12, 1987, Rodolfo Jr. joined the complaint alleging that the lands already belonged to him, he having bought the same from his father before the bank's levy.[14]
On November 30, 2004 the RTC rendered judgment, upholding the judicial levy on and subsequent execution sale of the land covered by Rodolfo Sr.'s TCT T-4199 since this title did not bear any annotation respecting its having been earlier sold to his son. There was also no evidence that the Bank had knowledge of that sale.[15] The RTC ruled, however, that since Rodolfo Sr.'s sale to his son had been annotated on the land covered by TCT T-5859, the bank could not plead ignorance of such prior sale. The Bank's subsequent levy could not defeat the sale to Rodolfo, Jr. and his title to the land.
The Bank appealed the RTC decision with respect to TCT T-5859 to the Court of Appeals (CA). Before its 45 days to file appellant's brief could expire on January 13, 2007, the Bank moved for a 20-day extension of time to file the same.[16] Having assumed that the CA granted the first motion, the Bank asked for a second extension of 20 days within which to file its brief.[17] Subsequently, also assuming that the CA granted its second motion, the Bank filed a third and final motion for extension of 20 days within which to file its brief[18] and filed the same within the extension asked on March 14, 2007.
On March 26, 2007, however, the Bank received a copy of the resolution[19] of the CA dated March 5, 2007, denying its final motion for extension and dismissing its appeal for failing to file its brief despite the extensions that the court granted it. The CA also denied the Bank's motion for reconsideration.[20]
The question presented in this case is whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the Bank's appeal for failure to file its appellant's brief on time.
The Bank asks for the relaxation of the technical rules of procedure given that (a) it had duly perfected its appeal;[21] (b) the higher interest of substantial justice and the prima facie merit of the appeal;[22] (c) the motions for extension were all filed before the expiration of the period it was required to file its brief;[23] (d) it filed its appellant's brief within the period sought for in its final motion for extension;[24] (e) the death of the original counsel of record;[25] (f) the demise of the original party-defendant which is Philippine Banking Corporation;[26] and (g) its present counsel was preparing a pleading in another equally important case.[27]
The expiration of time to file 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.[28] In Tiangco v. Land Bank of the Philippines,[29] this Court reiterated that the dismissal of an appeal for failure of an appellant to file his brief within the time prescribed is not automatic of mandatory, but addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into account the circumstances obtaining in each case, and the tenets of fair play and justice.[30]
Based on the admitted facts of this case, the Bank raises a substantial issue regarding the correctness of the RTC's ruling which upheld the validity of the sale of the land covered by TCT T-5859 in Rodolfo Jr.'s favor. While that sale had been annotated on the original copy of the title with the Register of Deeds, the latter office caused the cancellation of such annotation when Rodolfo Jr. failed to present the owner's duplicate copy as promised. The need for the CA to resolve the issue of whether or not the Bank's subsequent levy on the property is valid under the circumstances serves as compelling reason for relaxing the rigid enforcement of the reglementary period for the filing of briefs in the interest of justice. The CA should also take into account the fact that the Bank already filed its brief before it received a copy of the CA resolution denying its final motion for extension to file brief.
Besides, Rodolfo Sr. and Jr. have not shown that they suffered material injury or that their cause was prejudiced by the Bank's delay in filing its brief. Indeed, they filed no motion to dismiss the CA case on account of that delay, thus justifying the relaxation of the rules.cralaw
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court SETS ASIDE the resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated March 5 and September 21, 2007 in CA-G.R. CV 00828 and DIRECTS that court to admit petitioner Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company's Appellant's Brief, give due course to the appeal, and decide the same on its merits. (Mendoza, J., on official leave, Bersamin, J., designated Acting Member, per Special Order 1241 dated June 14, 2012.)
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] TSN, August 8, 1988, pp. 5-8; Exhibits for the defendant, pp. 1-4.[2] Known as Lot 88, Pls-423 with an area of 21,317 square meters and covered by TCT T-5859; and Lot 91, Pls-423 measuring 14,191 square meters and embraced in TCT T-4199.
[3] Exhibits for the plaintiff, pp. 1, 3 (dorsal portion).
[4] TSN, August 8, 1988, pp. 8-9.
[5] Id. at 22-24.
[6] Rollo, p. 128; records, p. 10.
[7] Exhibits for the plaintiff, p. 1 (dorsal portion); TSN, August 8, 1988, pp. 25-28.
[8] TSN, August 8, 1988, pp. 22-23.
[9] Id. at 24; exhibits for the defendant, pp. 6 (dorsal side), 11.
[10] Exhibits for the plaintiff, pp. 2, 4.
[11] Exhibits for the defendant, pp. 6 (dorsal side), 9 (dorsal side).
[12] TCT T-21602 for Lot 88 and TCT T-21605 for Lot 91.
[13] Records, pp. 1-5.
[14] Id. at 46-53.
[15] Rollo, pp. 121-126.
[16] CA rollo, pp. 23-26.
[17] Id. at 28-32.
[18] Id. at 33-37.
[19] Rollo, pp. 113-115, penned by Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., and concurred in by Justices Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores and Jane Aurora C. Lantion.
[20] Id. at 117-119.
[21] Id. at 42.
[22] Id. at 31, 50.
[23] Id. at 33-34.
[24] Id. at 34, 55-56.
[25] Id. at 34-35.
[26] Id. at 35.
[27] Id. at 36.
[28] Ong v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 175116, August 18, 2010, 628 SCRA 415, 428-429, citing Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, 164 Phil. 129, 136 (1976).
[29] G.R. No. 153998, October 6, 2010, 632 SCRA 256.
[30] Id. at 269.
