Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
161
162
MENDOZA, J.:
Before this Court is a petition for review under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court assailing the November 5, 2009
Resolution1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in C.A.-G.R. CEB
CV No. 01733, which granted the respondents Urgent
Motion to Dismiss Appeal,2 dated September 23, 2009, on
the ground that petitioner Baldomera Foculan-Fudalan
(Baldomera) failed to file her appellants brief within the
non-extendible period of forty-five (45) days; and the
October 26, 2010 Resolution3 which denied her Omnibus
Motion for Reconsideration of the Reso-
_______________
The Antecedents
The present controversy began when the spouses Danilo
Ocial and Davidica Bongcaras-Ocial (Spouses Ocial),
represented by their Attorneyin-Fact, Marcelino
Bongcaras, filed an action for the declaration of validity of
partition and sale, recovery of ownership and possession
and damages against Flavio Fudalan (Flavio) and Cristobal
Fudalan (Cristobal) before the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 3, Tagbilaran City (RTC), docketed as Civil Case
No. 6672.
Later, Baldomera, the wife of Flavio and mother of
Cristobal, intervened as 3rd party plaintiff against third
party defendants, Heirs of Pedro and Ulpiano Fuderanan
(the Fuderanans), the predecessors-in-interest of Spouses
Ocial.
The subject of the said action was a parcel of land
designated as Cad. Lot No. 56-A located at Tangnan,
Panglao, Bohol, which was a portion of Lot No. 56, Cad
705-D, Panglao Cadastre, in the name of Juana Fuderanan
(Juana).
Spouses Ocial alleged in their complaint5 that on March
13, 2001, the heirs of Juana executed the Extrajudicial
Settlement Among Heirs with Simultaneous Deed of
Absolute Sale over Lot 56-A including two (2) fruit-bearing
mango trees in their favor as lawful vendees; that as the
new owners of the subject land, they caused the planting of
thirty (30) gemelina seedlings, twenty (20) mahogany
seedlings, and two (2) mango seedlings, and in October
2001, they claimed the landowners share of the mango
produce from Maximo Bolongaita who had been taking care
of the two (2) fruit-bearing mango trees; that in October
2001, they caused the placement of a no-trespassing sign
on one of the mango trees; that they also
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 136-141.
5 Id., at pp. 94-99.
164
_______________
_______________
7 Id., at p. 124.
8 Id., at p. 102.
9 Id., at p. 104.
10 Id., at p. 107.
166
_______________
11 Id.
12 Id., at p. 123.
167
168
_______________
169
Not in conformity, the Fudalans and Baldomera filed
their respective notices of appeal with the trial court.
The CAs Decision
On March 18, 2009, upon receipt of the records, the CA
issued a Resolution,15 requiring the Fudalans and
Baldomera, as well as Spouses Ocial; and Evagra F. Bacat,
as third party defendants, to file their respective briefs
within the non-extendible period of forty-five (45) days.
_______________
14 Id., at p. 130.
15 Id., at pp. 131-132.
170
According to the CA, [b]laming the failure to file the
required brief on counsels heavy workload, on the mistake
or ignorance of his client, and excusable neglect on his part
is not acceptable.18 What happened was simply the
negligence
_______________
16 Id., at p. 134.
17 Id., at p. 194.
18 Id., at p. 193.
171
_______________
19 Id., at p. 194.
172
Baldomera posits that it was erroneous for the CA to
dismiss her appeal on the ground that she failed to file her
appellants brief on time. She cited the case of Sebastian v.
Morales21 where it was written that liberal construction of
the rules is the controlling principle to effect substantial
justice.
Nevertheless, the Court in the same case made
qualifications with respect to the application of the said
principle. It was held therein:
_______________
173
In other words, procedural rules are not to be belittled or
dismissed simply because their nonobservance may have
resulted in prejudice to a partys substantive rights. Like
all rules, they are required to be followed except only for
the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed
to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with
the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the
procedure prescribed.23 Besides, as the oft-quoted quip
would put it, the bare invocation of in the interest of
substantial justice is not a magic wand that will
automatically compel this Court to suspend procedural
rules.24
Although the authority of the CA to dismiss an appeal
for failure to file the appellants brief is a matter of judicial
discretion, a dismissal based on this ground is neither
mandatory nor ministerial; the fundamentals of justice and
fairness must be observed, bearing in mind the background
and web of circumstances surrounding the case.25
Petitioners assertion that her counsel is partly to be
blamed for her legal predicament is not persuasive. Indeed,
there have been myriad of instances when the Court has
relaxed the rule on the binding effect of counsels
negligence
_______________
174
_______________
26 Dimarucot v. People, 645 Phil. 218, 228; 630 SCRA 659, 668 (2010).
27 Id.
28 Apostol v. Court of Appeals, 590 Phil. 88, 100-101; 569 SCRA 80, 92
(2008).
175
_______________
176
ity towards the true owner, that is, possession under the
claim of title.31
Even the allegation that sometime on November 4, 1983,
a blue paper was executed wherein Teofredo and Eutiquia,
allegedly the duly authorized representatives of the heirs of
Juana to settle their claims over the land, acknowledged to
have received the sum of P1,000.00,32 cannot be considered
a valid basis for a possession in good faith and just title.
The alleged agreement which is, at best, a compromise
agreement cannot be made as the foundation of a
conclusion that Baldomera is a possessor in good faith and
with just title who acquired the property through ordinary
acquisitive prescription. By the nature of a compromise
agreement, which brings the parties to agree to something
that neither of them may actually want, but for the peace it
will bring them without a protracted litigation, no right can
arise therefrom because the parties executed the same only
to buy peace and to write finis to the controversy. It did not
create or transmit ownership rights over the subject
property.33
That being settled, the next question now is: Can
Baldomera acquire the property through extraordinary
acquisitive prescription?
The Court is still constrained to rule in the negative.
In extraordinary prescription, ownership and other real
rights over immovable property are acquired through
uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years even without
need of title or of good faith.34
As observed by the trial court:
_______________
31 Olegario v. Mari, 623 Phil. 48, 59; 608 SCRA 134, 145 (2009).
32 Rollo, p. 86.
33 Supra note 30 at p. 381; p. 337.
34 Heirs of the late Felix M. Bucton v. Go, G.R. No. 188395, November
20, 2013, 710 SCRA 457, 472.
177
_______________
178
_______________
179
SO ORDERED.
_______________