ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 145179. November 15, 2000]

DOMINGO DE ASIS vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 15 2000.

G.R. No. 145179 (Domingo De Asis vs. Court of Appeals and L & R Corporation.)

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 from the dismissal of the appeal to the Court of Appeals from the RTC on the ground that it was filed out of time.

In 1993, petitioner Domingo De Asis went abroad and entrusted the duplicate certificates of title over two (2) parcels of land under the custody of his granddaughter Carmen De Asis. When petitioner returned to the Philippines, he found out that the titles have been cancelled and new ones were issued to defendant Carmen De Asis based on a purported deed of donation. Defendant Carmen De Asis then mortgaged these properties to defendant L&R Corporation (Corporation) to secure a loan of P800,000.00. Defendant Carmen De Asis failed to pay the loan prompting the defendant Corporation to foreclose the mortgage. Petitioner filed this case to annul the certificates of title issued in the name of defendant Carmen, the deed of real estate mortgage and deed of donation with prayer for TRO and writ of preliminary injunction.

On December 9, 1997, the trial court ordered the cancellation of the certificates of title and deed of donation. However, the trial court ruled that the lien over the mortgaged property in favor of defendant Corporation shall continue to be enforceable against the property covered by the new titles. The petitioner received a copy of this decision on December 16, 1997. On December 22, 1997, petitioner filed a motion for partial reconsideration. The trial court denied the motion in an order dated March 16, 1998, a copy of which was received on April 8, 1998.

On April 20, 1998, petitioner filed a motion for partial appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed this appeal in a resolution dated January 31, 2000, for the reason that it was filed out of time. Hence, petitioner filed this petition.

The issue before this Court is: Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the notice of appeal was filed two days beyond the period of appeal?

We rule in the negative. Admittedly, the notice of appeal was filed two (2) days after the lapse of the period of appeal. It is well-settled that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and the failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory. ¹ Almeda v. Court of Appeals, 292 SCRA 587 (1998).Under Sec. 1(b), Rule 50 of the Rules of Court, an appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the ground of failure to file the notice of appeal or record on appeal within the period prescribed by these Rules. That the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on this ground was a valid exercise of its discretion which this Court will not interfere there being no showing of abuse, much less grave abuse, of discretion. It is true that the Court of Appeals could have used its equity jurisdiction and allowed the appeal. Nevertheless, the fact that it did not does not constitute any abuse of its discretion.

Even on the merits of the case, the petition should be dismissed. The trial court found that the Corporation was a mortgagee in good faith and for value. The principle which protects an "innocent purchaser for value" which include innocent lessee, mortgagee and other encumbrances for value applies where the land involved is registered, as in this case, under the Torrens system. ² Sec. 39, Act 496 now Sec. 32, P.D. No. 1529.This case falls squarely within the doctrinal ruling in Blanco, et al. v. Esquierdo, et al., ³ 110 Phil. 494 (1960).where this Court ruled that "an innocent mortgagee for value, its right or lien upon the land mortgaged must e respected and protected, even if the mortgagor obtained her title thru fraud. The remedy of the persons prejudiced is to bring an action for damages against those causing fraud, and if the latter are insolvent, an action against the Treasurer of the Philippines may be filed for the recovery of damages against the Assurance Fund" Having entrusted the title to the defendant, the petitioner made it possible that the fraud was committed. As between him and an innocent mortgagee for value, the latter must be protected. The principle of equity, that as between two innocent persons, one of whom must suffer the consequences of a breach of trust, the one who made it possible by his act of confidence must bear the loss, is applicable. ⁴ Ibid.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, this Court finds no grave of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals in dismissing the appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of appeal. Hence, the petition is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE