THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 208517. March 17, 2014.]
FELIMON B. BEARNEZA, ANASTACIA B. BEARNEZA, HEIRS OF ELEUTERIA B. BEARNEZA, HEIRS OF EMMANUEL B. BEARNEZA, HEIRS OF MAXIMO B. BEARNEZA, JR., HEIRS OF VIRGILIO B. BEARNEZA, GUADALUPE B. BEARNEZA AND LERMA BAYLAS-SEDOTES, petitioners, vs. NELLY BEARNOD SIATONG, ACCOMPANIED BY HER HUSBAND, LEONARDO SIATONG, RUFINA BEARNOD GUANZON, ACCOMPANIED BY HER HUSBAND, RAMONITO GUANZON, ELPE CASTRO, ACCOMPANIED BY HER HUSBAND, FELIPE CASTRO, BONIFACIO BEARNOD, STEPHEN BIBOSO, RICARDO BEARNOD, HERMEGILDO BEARNOD, MARTIN BEARNOD, AND CATALINA BEARNOD, ACCOMPANIED BY HER HUSBAND RAMON PAGLINAWAN, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 17, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 208517 (Felimon B. Bearneza, Anastacia B. Bearneza, Heirs of Eleuteria B. Bearneza, Heirs of Emmanuel B. Bearneza, Heirs of Maximo B. Bearneza, Jr., Heirs of Virgilio B. Bearneza, Guadalupe B. Bearneza and Lerma Baylas-Sedotes vs. Nelly Bearnod Siatong, accompanied by her husband, Leonardo Siatong, Rufina Bearnod Guanzon, accompanied by her husband, Ramonito Guanzon, Elpe Castro, accompanied by her husband, Felipe Castro, Bonifacio Bearnod, Stephen Biboso, Ricardo Bearnod, Hermegildo Bearnod, Martin Bearnod, and Catalina Bearnod, accompanied by her husband Ramon Paglinawan). This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It prays that the Court of Appeals' November 21, 2012 resolution 1 dismissing petitioners' appeal for their failure to file an appellants' brief despite the extension of sixty (60) days given to them and the July 30, 2013 resolution 2 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration be set aside.
In our resolution of November 20, 2013, we denied the petition for raising no reversible error and for raising substantially factual issues. On January 13, 2014, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. 3
The petition is an offshoot of two (2) consolidated cases decided by the Iloilo City Regional Trial Court, Branch 29. The first is Civil Case No. 22309, an action for recovery of possession and damages filed by petitioners (the Bearnezas) against respondents (the Bearnods). The second is an action for reconveyance of hereditary shares, partition, annulment of title, and damages filed by the Bearnods against the Bearnezas. Both cases pertain to two lots (Lot 52 and 59) located in Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo.
For their part, the Bearnezas claimed that they are the children of Maximo Bearneza, the son of Germogines Bearneza and Eleuteria Buyco. They claimed that upon Maximo's death, his half-sisters, Teodorica and Encarnacion, surreptitiously took possession of Lots 52 and 59. Upon Teodorica's death, the lots were left without an administrator; thus, one of Maximo's children, Anastacia, took over their administration. Supposedly to Anastacia's surprise, several of the Bearnods were occupying portions of Lots 52 and 59. The Bearnezas supposedly tolerated the Bearnods' occupation subject to the Bearnods' promise that they would vacate the premises should the Bearnezas require them to do so. As the Bearnods refused to vacate the premises despite the Bearnezas' subsequent demands, the Bearnezas filed their complaint. 4
For their part, the Bearnods claimed that they are the children of Eustaquio Bearnod who, during his lifetime, was the registered owner of a one-fourth share in Lot 52. Eustaquio was supposedly the co-owner, along with his sisters, Teodorica and Encarnacion, as well as with half-brother Maximo Bearneza, Maximo being the son of their mother, Eleuteria Buyco, from her first marriage. The Bearnods alleged that they were excluded by the Bearnezas in the deed of adjudication, which the Bearnezas executed on December 29, 1987, thereby making it appear that only the Bearnezas were the surviving heirs of Eleuteria Buyco and, in turn, depriving the Bearnods of their hereditary shares. CASIEa
The Bearnezas also pointed out that one of the supposed signatories to the deed of adjudication, Ramona Bearneza-Baylas, could not have participated in its execution as she had died more than nine (9) years prior to the deed's execution or on November 19, 1978. In their complaint, the Bearnods sought the reconveyance of their corresponding hereditary share. 5
Through the December 29, 1987 deed of adjudication, an order of reconstitution was supposedly issued by the Iloilo City Regional Trial Court, Branch 33. Thereafter, the Bearnezas were able to have Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) over Lots 52 and 59 issued in their names. As against these TCTs, the Bearnods pointed out that the Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) over Lots 52 and 59 indicated Maximo, Eustaquio, Encarnacion, and Teodorica as the registered owners, each with a one-fourth share. During the trial, the Clerk of Court of the Iloilo City Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, likewise testified that the trial court's cadastral book of entries for the petition for reconstitution contained no entry in respect of Lots 52 and 59. 6
The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the Bearnods. Finding that fraud intervened in the issuance of TCTs in favor of the Bearnezas, the Regional Trial Court ordered that the Bearnods' hereditary share be restored.
Aggrieved, the Bearnezas appealed to the Court of Appeals.
As noted by the Court of Appeals in the assailed November 21, 2012 resolution, 7 a notice to file brief was sent to the Bearnezas on May 25, 2012, giving them forty-five (45) days from receipt within which to file their appellants' brief. 8
On August 10, 2012, the Bearnezas filed the first of three (3) motions for extension (first motion). In the first motion, they sought an extension of sixty (60) days from August 12, 2012 or until October 11, 2012 within which to file their appellants' brief.
The Court of Appeals dismissed their appeal, noting that as of November 21, 2012, more than a month after the end of the sixty (60)-day extension sought by the Bearnezas, they had not yet filed their appellants' brief. IDSaAH
On December 11, 2012, the Bearnezas filed a motion for reconsideration, 9 praying that they be allowed to file their appellants' brief on or before December 15, 2012. In their motion for reconsideration, they noted that on October 9, 2012, they filed a second motion for extension (second motion) seeking an extension of forty-five (45) days from October 11, 2012 or until November 25, 2012 within which to file their appellants' brief. They added that on November 21, 2012, they filed a third motion for extension (third motion) seeking an extension of twenty (20) days from November 25, 2012 or until December 15, 2012 within which to file their appellants' brief. Without any further explanation, they also stated that "[a]ppellants have a meritorious case." 10
On December 17, 2012, petitioners filed a motion to admit appellants' brief. 11
On July 30, 2013, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution 12 denying the Bearnezas' motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals noted that it received the second and third motions only on December 21, 2012 and December 13, 2012, respectively. The Court of Appeals added that in the motions, the Bearnezas simply stated that "they needed more time to collate the records of the case and they needed more time to prepare for [their] brief," 13 failing to fully expound on why numerous extensions were justified. The Court of Appeals also emphasized that the mere filing of a motion for extension should not be an assurance that the motion will be granted.
Aggrieved, the Bearnezas filed the present petition praying that the Court of Appeals' resolution dismissing their appeal and subsequent resolution denying their motion for reconsideration be set aside and that the case be remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. 14 Insisting that substantial justice requires the review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court, they insist that they are the sole heirs of Eleuteria Buyco. They insist that it could not be ascertained that Eustaquio, Teodorica, and Encarnacion are Eleuteria's children as neither their certificates of birth nor any other authentic documents indicating their filiation were produced. They also assail the documents presented by the Bearnods as inauthentic. Finally, they contest the Regional Trial Court's finding of fraud in relation to the supposed non-existence of the order of reconstitution.
On November 20, 2013, this court issued a resolution denying the petition for raising no reversible error and for raising substantially factual issues.
On January 13, 2014, the Bearnezas filed a motion for reconsideration in which they assert that the provisions of the old Civil Code should govern in determining the rights of the parties considering that Eustaquio, Encarnacion, and Teodorica are not the children of Eleuteria Buyco. They also assail the Bearnods' reliance on what were supposedly mere photocopies of the OCTs covering Lots 52 and 59 and the accuracy of the Regional Trial Court's finding of fraud.
For resolution is the issue of whether or not, given the circumstances, the Bearnezas' appeal before the Court of Appeals may still be entertained.
In Dimarucot v. People of the Philippines, 15 it was explained:
The right to appeal is not a natural right and is not part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in accordance with the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.
Strict compliance with the Rules or Court is indispensable for the orderly and speedy disposition of justice. The Rules must be followed, otherwise, they will become meaningless and useless. 16
As correctly noted by the Court of Appeals, the mere filing of a motion for extension is no assurance that an extension will be granted. Also, as was stated in Cruz v. Court of Appeals: 17
In not a few instances, we relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure, so that the ends of justice may be better served. However, such liberality may not be invoked if it would result in the wanton disregard of the rules, and cause needless delay. Save for the most persuasive of reasons, strict compliance with the rules is enjoined to facilitate the orderly administration of justice. 18
In this case, the Bearnezas filed three (3) motions for extension, seeking a total extension of one hundred twenty-five (125) days beyond the date set by the Court of Appeals in its notice to file brief. There was nothing in the records that would show that the Court of Appeals granted the first motion, but the Bearnezas still went on to file a second and even a third motion that further delayed the progress of the case. Moreover, the Bearnezas never presented to the Court of Appeals any sufficient justification for a 125-day extension. From their conduct, the Bearnezas manifested a "wanton disregard of the rules [and caused] needless delay." 19 CHTcSE
The supposed substantial merits raised by the Bearnezas in their petition — the filiation of Eustaquio, Encarnacion, and Teodorica; the nature of the documents presented by the Bearnods; and the absence or presence of an order of reconstitution in the records of the Iloilo City Regional Trial Court, Branch 33 — relate to factual matters which are inappropriate for a Rule 45 petition. There is, likewise, no basis for saying that there was a misapprehension of facts by the trial court. First, the Bearnezas themselves acknowledged in their complaint that Maximo is the half-brother of Encarnacion and Teodorica. 20 Second, the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, categorically stated that "[a]fter carefully gone individually the entries [sic] in this cadastral docket, I have not come across the reconstitution affecting Lot No. 52 and Lot No. 59 of the Barotac Nuevo Cadastre." 21
In the motion for reconsideration, the Bearnezas insist that a legal question exists in this case since a determination must be made as to which between the provisions of the old Civil Code and the new Civil Code properly govern the rights of the parties. However, the resolution of this matter rests on the veracity of the Bearnezas' assertion that Eustaquio, Encarnacion, and Teodorica are not the children of Eleuteria Buyco. Again, this is a factual issue which is not appropriate to a Rule 45 petition.
Likewise, the other points raised by the Bearnezas — the Regional Trial Court's findings of fraud and the issue that the Bearnods supposedly presented unauthenticated photocopies of the OCTs covering Lots 52 and 59 — also relate to factual issues. Thus, the present petition does not relate to pure questions of law as required in a Rule 45 petition. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration failed to raise any substantial argument warranting this court's reconsideration.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Henceforth, no further pleading shall be entertained. Let entry of judgment be made in due course. ATCEIc
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 7-8.
2. Id. at 11-14.
3. Id. at 266-289.
4. Id. at 215-218.
5. Id. at 219-220.
6. Id. at 238-240.
7. Id. at 7-8.
8. Id. at 7.
9. Id. at 90-93.
10. Id. at 92.
11. Id. at 104-106.
12. Id. at 11-14.
13. Id. at 13.
14. Id. at 63.
15. G.R. No. 183975, September 20, 2010, 630 SCRA 659 [Per J. Villarama, Jr., Third Division].
16. Id. at 668-669.
17. 513 Phil. 53 (2005) [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division].
18. Id. at 58.
19. Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 513 Phil. 53, 58 (2005) [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division].
20. Rollo, p. 216.
21. Id. at 240.