Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines Respondent: Court of Appeals, Afredo de Ocampo, Oscar Anglo Ponencia: Santos, J.
DOCTRINE:
Rules on perfection of appeals may and should be relaxed where compelling reasons so warrant.
FACTS: 1. Both Republic and respondents Alfredo V. de Ocampo and Oscar Anglo claim ownership over the same lots located in Negros Occidental. 2. According to RP, said lots were bequeathed to the Bureau of Education (now Bureau of Public Schools) on September 21, 1926 by the late Esteban Jalandoni through his will. Said land was already registered under the Torrens System with the proper titles on the land to prove it (OCT- of original owner, Meerkamp and Company who then sold the land to Jalandoni evidenced with a TCT). 3. In 1958, the Bureau of Public Schools, represented by the Provincial Fiscal of Negros Occidental initiated a forcible entry and detainer case against de Ocampo over lands in question. Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental dismissed the complaint and issued title to de Ocampo. 4. Republic did not file any appeal after receiving said decision on August 13, 1965. However, Republic later filed with the trial court on December 28, 1965, a petition to restrain Ocampo from enforcing the decision and to grant the Republic to file for a motion for reconsideration and/or appeal within the period granted. 5. On September 28, 1966, Republic filed an "Amended Petition claiming that Ocampo employed fraudulent means in acquiring the lands. However, trial court did not find merit in this accusation (misrepresentation as to the lands). ISSUES: 1. Whether or not dismissal of Republics appeal by CA was proper - whether or not within the period prescribed by the rules of court
PROVISION: Section 6, Rule 41, of the Rules of Court (Record on Appeal; Form and Contents)
RULING + RATIO: 1. NO, dismissal was not proper. SC held that there was lack of jurisdiction on the part of trial court (when they issued a decree of the land in the name of de Ocampo) when they decided on the case since the lands were registered in favor of Meerkamp and Company before 1919. SC also held that there are strong and substantial allegations of fraudulent misrepresentations and machinations employed by de Ocampo in securing his title. Thus, although Republic filed its appeal 6 days late from the period provided by the court, 1. Republic received copy of decision September 14, 1965 Republic can appeal until October 14, 1965 (30 days) Republic can appeal until November 3, 1965 (20 day extension approved by lower court) 2. Republic filed appeal on November 9, 1965 (6 days late) AND that the court has repeatedly construed Section 6, Rule 41, of the Rules of Court (Record on Appeal; Form and Contents) as mandatory and jurisdictional in nature, non-compliance with which justifies the dismissal of the appeal, affirming this appeal on the said ground would be an injustice. The rigid adherence to the rules on perfection of appeals may and should be relaxed where compelling reasons so warrant. The grounds invoked in this case not only lack of jurisdiction but gross injustice itself more than justify the exception considering further that the delay in the perfection of the appeal involved six (6) days only. THEREFORE, although the appeal was filed beyond the period allowed by the Rules of Court, SC decided that there were enough compelling reasons to relax this rule in order to prevent injustice.
THE CITY OF DAVAO, REPRESENTED BY THE CITY TREASURER OF DAVAO CITY, Petitioner, v.THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF AMADO S. DALISAY, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR ATTY. NICASIO B. PADERNA, Respondent.