Dizon, Jr. v. Vibar

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 224988. August 7, 2017.]

DR. NESTOR G. DIZON, JR., petitioner,vs. OLIVA VIBAR and ANITA TANGARO, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 07 August 2017 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 224988: DR. NESTOR G. DIZON, JR. v. OLIVA VIBAR AND ANITA TANGARO

This resolves a Petition for Review 1 assailing the Resolutions dated January 7, 2016 2 and June 7, 2016 3 of the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the Petition for Certiorari filed by Dr. Nestor G. Dizon, Jr. (Dizon) on technicalities.

The case a quo involves a conjugal property of the late spouses Simeon Gimarino and Sofia Gipulao Gimarino (the Spouses Gimarino). Simeon Gimarino (Simeon) and Sofia Gipulao Gimarino (Sofia) died in 1937 and 1961, respectively. 4

The Spouses Gimarino had three (3) children: Filomena, Domingo, and Revocata. 5 Filomena died in 1932, leaving her children Cresencio Martinet (Cresencio) and Genoveva Martinet (Genoveva). 6 Domingo died sometime in 1976, leaving as heirs his wife, Severa Vda. De Gimarino 7 (Severa), and their children, Florentina, Rosa, Antonio, Esteban, Clara, and Dominico (the Domingo Heirs). 8 Revocata died in 2006 and had 11 children, two (2) of whom are respondents: Oliva Gimarino Bate-Vibar (Oliva) and Anita Gimarino Bate-Tangaro (Anita). 9

Sometime in 1991, Revocata filed a civil action for the partition of the Spouses Gimarino's conjugal property (Gadan property) in Gadan, 10 Kiamba, Sarangani 11 with an area of 12.7925 hectares and covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 2226. 12

The Regional Trial Court granted the partition on November 1, 1991. 13

However, on appeal, the trial court's decision was set aside 14 by the Court of Appeals in its April 10, 1995 Decision 15 in CA-G.R. CV No. 38309. 16

The Court of Appeals upheld the validity of the extra-judicial partition of the Gadan property on July 12, 1954, whereby Sofia sold her one-half (1/2) conjugal share to Domingo, while Simeon's half was divided among Domingo, Revocata, and Filomena, represented by Cresencio and Genoveva. 17

Furthermore, the Court of Appeals found that on March 26, 1982, Cresencio and Genoveva sold their undivided shares of the Gadan property to the Domingo Heirs for P12,000.00. 18

Finally, the Court of Appeals affirmed the validity of the amicable settlement dated August 18, 1984 between Revocata and Severa. Under this agreement, Revocata accepted a two (2)-hectare area in another property owned by Domingo 19 and the amount of P5,000.00 in exchange for her share in the Gadan property. 20 SaCIDT

The Court of Appeals Decision became final and executory on May 6, 1995, per Entry of Judgment 21 dated August 16, 1995.

Almost two (2) decades later, or on February 19, 2014, Oliva and Anita filed a Petition for Reconstitution of OCT No. 2226, registered under Simeon Gimarino married to Sofia Gipulao, before the Regional Trial Court in Sarangani. The case was docketed as Misc. Case No. 614. 22

Oliva and Anita alleged that the original copy of OCT No. 2226, which was in the custody of the Registry of Deeds of Cotabato, and the owner's duplicate copy, held by the registered owners, got lost when the records were transferred from the Registry of Cotabato to South Cotabato, and then to Saranggani starting from 1936. 23

Domingo's children Florentina, Rosa, and Antonio, together with their nephew Gil Gimarino Cawad (Gil) and niece Ma. Belen Gimarino Cawad (Belen) (collectively, the oppositors) 24 filed their Opposition. 25 They alleged that the owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. 2226 was not lost or destroyed. 26 They claimed that Oliva and Anita had no legal personality to file the petition because the Gadan property had long been partitioned among the heirs of the late Spouses Gimarino. 27 Finally, they maintained that Revocata had lost all her claim to the Gadan property on the basis of the Court of Appeals April 10, 1995 Decision. 28 The oppositors contended that they were the lawful owners of the Gadan property and stated that they had started subdividing this land. 29 Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the case. 30

On December 1, 2014, the case was dismissed without prejudice for failure of Oliva and Anita to file judicial affidavits. 31

However, upon Oliva and Anita's Motion for Reconsideration, the Regional Trial Court reinstated the case on March 14, 2015, conditioned on their payment of a fine of P5,000.00. 32

On May 13, 2015, Dizon, 33 petitioner in this present case, filed an Entry of Appearance and Motion for Reconsideration, 34 urging the trial court to dismiss the case based on merits and with prejudice. 35 He contended that the owner's duplicate copy of certificate of title was in the possession of the oppositors and was not missing as Oliva and Anita claimed. He averred that Oliva and Anita had no legal personality to file the petition for reconstitution because they were not real parties in interest. 36

Subsequently, Dizon filed a Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration 37 dated May 18, 2015. He argued that the petition for reconstitution was barred by the April 10, 1995 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 38309. 38

Dizon further claimed that the ownership of the property "changed from Simeon to the heirs of Domingo Gimarino and that if it [was] to be registered, it should be registered in [the] new owner[s'] name[s]." 39

Hence, he prayed that "the [p]etition be dismissed for lack of cause of action and wrong remedy as what is needed is registration not reconstitution." 40

On May 26, 2015, Judge Oscar P. Noel, Jr. (Judge Noel) issued an Order, which read:

The Entry of Appearance of Dr. Nestor G. Dizon, Jr. is DENIED due course being not a member of the Philippine BAR.

The Motion for [R]econsideration is likewise denied being filed by a non-member of the BAR, which constitute[s] an illegal practice of law. 41

On July 3, 2015, Dizon filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 42 citing Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which allowed for self-representation. 43 Dizon asserted that he was "not practicing law but appearing in his capacity as oppositor or real party-in-interest." 44

On July 8, 2015, the Regional Trial Court issued a Notice of Hearing, notifying the parties that the case would be heard on September 4, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. 45 The hearing was later reset to December 4, 2015. 46

Meanwhile, on August 5, 2015, Dizon filed his Manifestations 47 thanking the court for recognizing his appearance and calling its attention to his previous motions, which allegedly had not been acted upon.

On November 10, 2015, Judge Noel issued another Order, which read:

The Court is in receipt of the numerous pleadings of Dr. Nestor Dizon, Jr., who intends to intervene in this case, earlier his Entry of Appearance and his Motion for Reconsideration was already denied by the Court for not being a member of the Bar. He then filed a manifestation dated 4 August 2015. Then on November 6, 2015[,] a handwritten request for a subpoena was likewise filed by Dr. Dizon, Jr.

This Court hereby warns Dr. Dizon, Jr., to stop filing pleadings before this Court without the assistance of the [sic] member of the Bar, for he is wasting the precious time of the Court. If Dr. Dizon will continue to file such pleadings[,] this Court will cite him in contempt. 48

Dizon filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, assailing the Order dated November 10, 2015. 49

In a Resolution 50 dated January 7, 2016, the Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition due to the following infirmities:

1. There is deficiency in the payment of docket fees in the amount of P4,030.00, in violation of Sec. 3 (5th par.), Rule 46, Rules of Court.

2. There is no Affidavit of Service in violation of Sec. 13, Rule 13, supra.

3. There is no Written Explanation why the petition was FILED and SERVED by mail in violation of Sec. 11, Rule 13, supra. cHECAS

4. Mere machine copy of the assailed Order was appended to the petition in violation of Sec. 3 (3rd par), Rule 46, supra.

5. The Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping has no assurance that the allegations in the petition were based on authentic documents, in violation of Sec. 4 (2nd par.), Rule 7, supra.

6. The caption of the petition does not indicate the complete names of the private respondents, in violation of Sec. 3 (1st par.), Rule 46, supra.

7. Only two (2) copies of the Petition were filed with this Court.

8. The actual addresses of the private respondents were not indicated, in violation of Sec. 3 (1st par) Rule 46, supra. 51

Dizon filed a Motion for Reconsideration on February 1, 2016. 52

In its Resolution 53 dated June 7, 2016, the Court of Appeals denied Dizon's Motion for Reconsideration:

This Court finds no sufficient reason to take a second look at its assailed Resolution. This Court stresses that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. An appeal being a purely statutory right, an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. In other words, he who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must play by the rules. 54 (Citations omitted)

Hence, Dizon filed this petition, attributing error on the part of the Court of Appeals for (1) dismissing his Rule 65 petition purely on technicalities and thereby (2) upholding the patently null order of the Regional Trial Court denying his right to self-representation.

In their Comment, 55 respondents Oliva and Anita manifest that the case has become moot and academic as the Regional Trial Court has issued an Order 56 dated January 11, 2016, which granted their motion to withdraw the petition for reconstitution.

Petitioner countered 57 that the petition is not moot and the right to self-representation is an issue that needs to be resolved for the guidance of the trial court.

This Court denies the petition for being moot and academic.

A party's right to self-representation is recognized in this jurisdiction under Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Section 34. By whom litigation conducted. — In the court of a justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.

In Santos v. Judge Lacurom, 58 this Court held:

The Rules recognize the right of an individual to represent himself in any case in which he is a party. The Rules state that a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and that his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the Bar. The individual litigant may personally do everything in the progress of the action from commencement to the termination of the litigation. A party's representation on his own behalf is not considered to be a practice of law as "one does not practice law by acting for himself, any more than he practices medicine by rendering first aid to himself."

Therefore, Santos can conduct the litigation of the cases personally. Santos is not engaged in the practice of law if he represents himself in cases in which he is a party. By conducting the litigation of his own cases, Santos acts not as a counsel or lawyer but as a party exercising his right to represent himself. Certainly, Santos does not become a counsel or lawyer by exercising such right. 59 (Citations omitted)

Therefore, petitioner, at his own instance, can personally appear as an oppositor and conduct the litigation of the case a quo. He would then be acting not as a counsel or a lawyer but as a party exercising his right to represent himself.

The case a quo involves a civil case for reconstitution of title, with petitioner as one (1) of the oppositors. The solicitous concern that the Constitution accords the accused in a criminal prosecution does not obtain in a civil case. Hence, a party litigant in a civil case, who insists that he can, without a lawyer's assistance, effectively undertake the successful pursuit of his claim, may be given the chance to do so.

However, respondents' withdrawal of their petition for reconstitution, which was granted by the trial court, has rendered this case moot and academic. Petitioner questions the dismissal by the Court of Appeals of his Rule 65 petition on pure technicalities. Essentially, the underlying reason for this petition for review is to allow petitioner to intervene in Misc. Case No. 614 by himself. Considering the dismissal of the main case, the resolution of this petition for review has become unnecessary and would serve no useful purpose. The grant of the petition on mere incidental matters of the proceedings will not accord any practical relief to petitioner because the main case has already been dismissed.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for being moot and academic.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 4-14.

2.Id. at 77-78. Resolution signed by the Division Clerk of Court Atty. Joy Marie Badal-Pamisa.

3.Id. at 91-92. The Resolution, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 07113-MIN, was penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles and concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Ronaldo B. Martin of the Twenty-First Division, Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City.

4.Id. at 34.

5.Id. at 34.

6.Id. at 35.

7.Id. at 24.

8.Id. at 34.

9.Id. at 34-39. Revocata's 11 children are Sergio, Anita, Oliva, Antonio, Panfilo, Enrique, Elisa, Patrocinia, Fernando, Filomena, and Josefina.

10. "Gapan" in other parts of the Decision.

11.Rollo, p. 6.

12.Id. at 22.

13.Id. at 21-23.

14.Id. at 32.

15.Id. at 21-32.

16.Id. at 21.

17.Id. at 28 & 31.

18.Id. at 28.

19.Id. at 27-28.

20.Id. at 31.

21.Id. at 33.

22.Id. at 34.

23.Id. at 36.

24.See rollo, p. 43. Gil and Belen are children of Filomena, one (1) of Revocata's children.

25.Rollo, pp. 43-48.

26.Id. at 44.

27.Id. at 44-45.

28.Id. at 45-46.

29.Id. at 46.

30.Id.

31.Id. at 49. The Order was issued by Hon. Oscar P. Noel, Jr., Designated Judge for the Justice on Wheels.

32.Id. at 54.

33.See rollo, p. 55. Dr. Nestor G. Dizon, Jr. is a son of Florentina Gimarino Dizon, one of the original oppositors.

34.Rollo, pp. 55-57.

35.Id. at 55.

36.Id. at 56.

37.Id. at 58-59.

38.Id. at 59.

39.Id.

40.Id.

41.Id. at 60.

42.Id. at 61-63.

43.Id. at 62.

44.Id.

45.Id. at 64. The Notice meant "September 4, 2015" when it stated "September 4, 2014."

46.Id. at 7.

47.Id. at 65-66.

48.Id. at 68.

49.Id. at 69-76.

50.Id. at 110.

51.Id.

52.Id. at 108.

53.Id. at 91-92.

54.Id. at 109.

55.Id. at 204-205.

56.Rollo, p. 206.

57.Id. at 209-210.

58. 531 Phil. 239 (2006) [Per J. Carpio, Third Division].

59.Id. at 249-250.