ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 151318. October 23, 2006]

DAVID C. BUSTAMANTE, PETITIONER, versus DANILO C. BONIFACIO, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF PELAGIA ANGELES, MODESTA ANGELES, FELIPE ANGELES, VENANCIO ANGELES AND FIDELA ANGELES, RESPONDENTS

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT. 23, 2006 .

G.R. No. 151318 (David C. Bustamante, Petitioner, versus Danilo C. Bonifacio, In his Personal Capacity and as Representative of Pelagia Angeles, Modesta Angeles, Felipe Angeles, Venancio Angeles and Fidela Angeles, Respondents.)

x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

RESOLUTION

This Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, seeks the reversal of the September 27, 2001 and December 21, 2001 Orders of the Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 125, in Civil Case No. C-19491, granting respondents' Urgent Motion for Correction of Defendant's Given Name and Questioned TCT No. which is 29346 and not TCT No. 28346 and denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Granting the Motion for Correction.

On January 11, 2001, respondents Danilo C. Bonifacio, Pelagia Angeles, Modesta Angeles, Felipe Angeles, Venancio Angeles, and Fidela Angeles, represented by respondent Danilo C. Bonifacio, filed a Complaint [1] cralaw against petitioner David C. Bustamante with the Caloocan City RTC for Recovery of Possession and Ownership of Lots 4 and 5 under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 994 and Declaration of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 29346 as Null and Void. Respondents prayed that judgment be rendered, among others, declaring TCT No. 29346 as null and void and ordering petitioner to surrender possession and ownership of the lots covered by TCT No. 29346 to respondents.

On February 23, 2001, petitioner Bustamante filed an Alias Motion to Dismiss, [2] cralaw alleging that the Complaint stated no cause of action as different TCT numbers were alleged in the caption and paragraphs 3 and 6 of the Complaint. The caption referred to TCT No. 29346, while TCT Nos. 28346 and 25846 were mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 6, respectively.

Thereafter, several pleadings were filed relative to the Alias Motion to Dismiss. On March 27, 2001, the Caloocan City RTC issued an Order [3] cralaw denying the Alias Motion to Dismiss filed by petitioner and ruling relative to the issue of lack of cause of action:

As to the allegation regarding discrepancy in the title of the land indicated in the caption of the case as compared to that alleged in the complaint, well settled is the rule that 'it is not the caption of the pleading but the allegations therein that determine the nature of the action, and the Court shall grant the relief warranted by the allegations and the proof even if no such relief is prayed for.' (RAS vs. SUA, L-23302, September 25, 1968).

On May 15, 2001, petitioner Bustamante filed an Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim [4] cralaw refuting the allegations in the Complaint. Notably, petitioner attached TCT No. 29346 as Annex "1" of his answer, which appears to be the same TCT No. 29346 attached as Annex "C" of the Complaint. [5] cralaw

On June 6, 2001, respondent filed a Reply [6] cralaw to petitioner's answer; and on June 18, 2001, respondents filed an Urgent Motion for Correction of Defendant's Given Name and Questioned TCT No. which is 29346 and not TCT No. 28346 with a revised copy of their Reply. [7] cralaw

In his Amended Rejoinder to Plaintiffs' Reply and Opposition to Correct TCT No. 28346 to TCT No. 29346, [8] cralaw petitioner argued that the motion to correct was an admission on the part of respondents that they did not have a cause of action against petitioner and they could not identify the property subject of the recovery as required under Article 434 of the Civil Code.

On September 27, 2001, the Caloocan City RTC issued its first assailed Order [9] cralaw granting respondents' Urgent Motion for Correction, reasoning that the correction would not alter petitioner's cause of action as it was only the typographical error in the Reply that was the subject of the Motion for Correction.

On November 23, 2001, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Granting the Motion for Correction. [10] cralaw

On December 21, 2001, the trial court issued the second assailed Order [11] cralaw denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration on the same grounds cited in its September 27, 2001 Order.

Unconvinced, Bustamante filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari [12] cralaw with this Court.

We deny the petition.

The Court shall resolve two (2) issues raised in respondents' Comment [13] cralaw and petitioner's Counter Comment [14] cralaw to the instant petition, viz: (1) whether a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed directly before this Court is the correct mode of appeal under the foregoing circumstances; and (2) whether the Court should take cognizance of the assailed Orders, considering that they are interlocutory, as alleged by respondent.

Regarding the first issue-whether a Petition for Review on Certiorari directly filed with the Court is the correct mode of appeal-we rule in the affirmative.

Section 2 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides for the modes of appeal from the Regional Trial Court, to wit:

Section 2. Modes of appeal.-

(a) Ordinary appeal.-The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.

(b) Petition for review.-The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42.

(c) Appeal by certiorari.-In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45 (emphasis supplied).

In the instant case, the facts are undisputed. This Court need not resolve any factual issue in the resolution of the case and shall rely on the facts stated in the pleadings. Thus, this petition may be given due course.

Contrary to petitioner's allegation, there are no questions of fact raised in the petition. What is at issue is the interpretation of the allegations made in the pleadings and not the matters stated in these pleadings. The parties both impliedly admit that different TCT numbers appear in the caption and in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Reply. [15] cralaw Both parties even admit that different TCT numbers appear in the Complaint [16] cralaw itself. The sole question raised by petitioner is whether respondents complied with Article 434 of the Civil Code, given the above admissions and factual antecedents. Verily, the same is purely a legal issue that may be raised directly to the Supreme Court through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Respondents' allegation in their August 16, 2002 Comment [17] cralaw that petitioner failed to allege grave abuse of discretion against the RTC is of no moment. Grave abuse of discretion is not required under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to justify the filing of a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

Respondents further allege that petitioner Bustamante failed to serve a copy of the petition upon them in violation of Section 3 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Thus, they aver that under Section 5 of the same rule, the petition must be dismissed.

An examination of the petition would reveal that it was served by registered mail upon Atty. Artemio P. de Leon on January 23, 2002. From the records, it appears that Atty. de Leon was the counsel for petitioner's records in the Caloocan City RTC. As such, the service upon counsel of record by petitioner is tantamount to service upon the respondents.

Section 2 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides that:

Section 2. Filing and service, defined.-Filing is the act of presenting the pleading or other paper to the clerk of court.

Service is the act of providing a party with a copy of the pleading or paper concerned. If any party has appeared by counsel, service upon him shall be made upon his counsel or one of them, unless service upon the party himself is ordered by the court. Where one counsel appears for several parties, he shall only be entitled to one copy of any paper served upon him by the opposite side. (Emphasis supplied.)

Considering that the instant petition is a mere continuation of the case before the RTC, petitioner correctly served copies of the pleadings on appeal to the counsel of record in the RTC. Notwithstanding the March 14, 2002 Manifestation [18] cralaw of Atty. de Leon that he is not representing the respondents in the petition before this Court, it would be erroneous to declare that petitioner violated Section 3 of Rule 45 given the directives in Section 2 of Rule 13. The service of pleadings directly to parties will only be done upon express direction of the Court.

Anent the second issue, respondents also assert that the assailed Orders are not the proper subjects of a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court considering that these are interlocutory orders.

"Interlocutory" is defined as:

Provisional; interim; temporary; not final. Something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some point or matter, but is not a final decision of the whole controversy. An interlocutory order or decree is one which does not finally determine a cause of action but only decides some intervening matter pertaining to the cause, and which requires further steps to be taken in order to enable the court to adjudicate the cause on the merits. x x x. [19] cralaw

In the instant case, the assailed Orders deal with the issue of whether respondents properly identified the property subject matter of these orders. Notably, the Complaint was denominated as an action for the recovery and possession of two parcels of land covered by TCT No. 29346. Therefore, it becomes apparent that the issue raised to this Court is indeed interlocutory in nature, not dealing with the possession and ownership of the land.

Considering that the assailed Orders are interlocutory, these may not be the subject of review under Rule 45. In fact, Section 1 of Rule 41 clearly states that no appeal may be taken from interlocutory orders:

Section 1. Subject of appeal.-An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.

No appeal may be taken from:

x x x x

c. An interlocutory order (Emphasis supplied.)

It is worth mentioning that the proper procedure in this case, as enunciated by this Court, is to cite such interlocutory order as an error in the appeal of the case-in the event that the RTC rules in favor of respondents-and not to appeal such interlocutory order. Thus, in Yamaoka v. Pescarich Manufacturing Corporation, [20] cralaw we ruled that:

In Go v. Court of Appeals, x x x the Court adverted to the hazards of interlocutory appeals:

x x x It is axiomatic that an interlocutory order cannot be challenged by an appeal. Thus, it has been held that the proper remedy in such cases is an ordinary appeal from an adverse judgment on the merits, incorporating in said appeal the grounds for assailing the interlocutory orders. Allowing appeals from interlocutory orders would result in the 'sorry spectacle' of a case being subject of a counterproductive ping-pong to and from the appellate court as often as a trial court is perceived to have made an error in any of its interlocutory rulings. However, where the assailed order is patently erroneous and the remedy of appeal would not afford adequate and expeditious relief, the Court may allow certiorari as a mode of redress. (Emphasis supplied.)

Furthermore, Section 6, Rule 45 provides for the grounds for which a Petition for Review on Certiorari may be filed:

Section 6. Review discretionary.-A review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor. The following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons which will be considered:

(a) When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court; or

(b) When the court a quo has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision. (Emphasis supplied.)

In the instant petition, as correctly pointed out by respondents, petitioner failed to present special and important reasons for a review of the assailed Orders of the RTC.

Even assuming that the petition is sufficient in form and substance, it must still fail as regards the issue on whether respondents complied with Article 434 of the Civil Code. This article provides that "[i]n an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim."

Petitioner claims that respondents violated the said provision of law for not identifying the disputed property, as differing TCT numbers were stated in the Complaint and in the Reply. Petitioner argues that respondents' June 15, 2001 Urgent Motion for Correction of Defendant's Given Name and Questioned TCT No. which is 29346 and not TCT No. 28346, which is the subject matter of the assailed Orders, is a proof that petitioner indeed failed to identify with certainty the property subject matter of his claim.

A reading of the entire Complaint would show that the subject property has been identified with certainty, in compliance with Article 434 of the Civil Code. The relevant facts in the Complaint are as follows:

1. In the caption of the Complaint, the case was denominated as "For: Recovery of Possession and Ownership of Lots 4 & 5 under OCT No. 994 and Declaration of TCT No. 29346 as null and void (emphasis supplied)";

2. The defendant was identified as David C. Bustamante, the petitioner;

3. Respondents allegedly occupied the subject property;

4. The metes and bounds of the subject property were identified in paragraph 3 of the Complaint;

5. The subject property was identified to have been derived from OCT No. 994; and

6. Respondents attached TCT No. 29346 as Annex "C" of the Complaint.

Given the above facts, there can be no doubt as to the identity of the subject property, which is the subject matter of the Complaint. The attachment of the TCT is sufficient indication of the subject property involved in the Complaint.

Moreover, in his Answer, petitioner Bustamante discussed at length the property covered by TCT No. 29346 and attached the same TCT as Annex "1" of his Answer identical to Annex "C" (TCT No. 29346) of respondents' Complaint. Thus, it may be inferred that, in petitioner's mind, there is no confusion as to the subject property; and petitioner has therefore no basis in claiming that respondents failed to identify the property subject matter of the Complaint.

Hence, respondents had adequately established the identity of the subject matter of the Complaint, in compliance with Article 434 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the assailed September 27, 2001 and December 21, 2001 Orders of the Caloocan City Regional Trial Court, Branch 125.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw

[2] cralaw Id. at 34-41.

[3] cralaw Id. at 48-49.

[4] cralaw Id. at 51-57.

[5] cralaw Id. at 58.

[6] cralaw Id. at 136-137.

[7] cralaw Id. at 140-142.

[8] cralaw Id. at 148-150.

[9] cralaw Id. at 188-189.

[10] cralaw Id. at 190-191.

[11] cralaw Id. at 199.

[12] cralaw Rollo, pp. 3-9.

[13] cralaw Id. at 56-58.

[14] cralaw Id. at 59-61.

[15] cralaw Supra note 6.

[16] cralaw Supra note 1.

[17] cralaw Supra note 13.

[18] cralaw Rollo, p. 50.

[19] cralaw H. Black, et al., BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 815 (6th ed., 1990).

[20] cralaw G.R. No. 146079, July 20, 2001, 361 SCRA 672, 680-681.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com