THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 202661, March 17, 2021
LETICIA A. RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. FELOMINO ELOMINA, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-INFACT, FEDERICO ELOMINA,*, Respondent.**
D E C I S I O N
HERNANDO, J.:
Challenged in this appeal1 is the Court of Appeals' May 25, 2012 Resolution2 ordering the issuance of an Entry of Judgment of its October 12, 2011 Decision3 in CA-G.R. CV No. 92374 which declared respondent Felomino Elomina (Felomino) as the lawful owner of the subject property and ordered petitioner Leticia Ramirez (Ramirez) to reconvey said property to Felomino. The May 25, 2012 Resolution was issued in relation to the appellate court's December 21, 20114 Resolution which denied Ramirez's Motion for Reconsideration5 for having been filed out of time.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court: |
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant case is ordered DISMISSED for lack of merit.Felomino moved for reconsideration. Pending its resolution, the DENR, through its Regional Executive Director, received a letter from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in response to his request for the filing of a complaint for cancellation of title against Ramirez.19 The OSG wrote:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.18
A cause of action for declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title would require allegations of the plaintiff's ownership of the contested lot prior to the issuance of such free patent and certificate of title as well as the defendant's fraud or mistake, as the case may be, in successfully obtaining these documents of title over the parcel of land claimed by plaintiff. In such a case, the nullity arises strictly not from the fraud or deceit but from the fact that the land is beyond the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands to bestow and whatever patent or certificate of title obtained therefore is consequently void ab initio. The real party in interest is not the State but the plaintiff who alleges a pre-existing right of ownership over the parcel of land in question even before the grant of title to the defendant. Accordingly, it is Felomino Elomina, the intended beneficiary over the parcel of land in question, who should file the complaint for cancellation of free patent and certificate of title since he is the real party-in-interest.20In its November 14, 2008 Order,21 the trial court denied Felomino's Motion for Reconsideration. The trial court reiterated that the action has already prescribed and that he is not the real party in interest, since he is neither an applicant nor a registered owner of the Subject Land.22
From the testimony of the plaintiff-appellant's son, Federico, it appears that their family had been living on Lot 922 dating back to the time of his grandfather Felix. In the time of Felomino alone, more than 70 years had passed. His father and he are still living on the lot, and during all this time, they did not know of anybody claiming right over the lot. Despite their continuous possession of the land, however, they could not show any document to show their ownership, as his father and grandfather were ignorant and did not know how to have the land titled in their names. Then in 1994, the defendant Ramirez surfaced and tried to evict them from the property, although she did not have any house on and was not in possession of the land. They filed a protest against the defendant with the DENR in July 2000, some 6 years later, because of lack of knowledge of his parents.The appellate court further pointed out that the four-year prescriptive period as to an action for reconveyance of real property resulting from fraud does not apply where the party applying for reconveyance is in possession of the property.28
Fernando Velandres, the Chief of the Legal Division of the Regional Office [of the DENR], had gone to the area and confirmed the presence of more than ten houses where the family of Elomina were residing. There was nothing to indicate that the defendant had any house there.
There is no question that [the]land occupied by the plantiff-appellant [Felomino] and his family is within the alienable portion of the public domain, or the DENR would not have agreed to issue a patent to the defendant-appellee [Ramirez]. It is also uncontested that they have been in possession for more than 70 years, practically since time immemorial, since the possession dates back to the time of his father. And it is as plain as day that the plaintiff-appellant is in present possession as confirmed by the DENR officials who made a personal inspection of the land. The defendant-appellee had never possessed the land, and she was able to obtain a patent only through the misrepresentation that she was the occupant. She was able to obtain registration through fraud on the rights of the rightful occupants who are the plaintiff-appellant and his family.
x x x
In this case, the plaintiff-appellant, not counting the possession of his father, had lived on the property all his life, and he is now over 70 years old.
Prescinding from the fact that, by virtue of their possession, adverse and uninterrupted for more than the required period, the lot in question[,] Lot 922[,] has become private property and passed to their ownership through a presumed grant from the government, the plaintiff-appellant has absolutely the right to file an action for reconveyance to recover the title from the defendant-appellee who recorded it in her name without their knowledge through registration proceedings.27
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is reversed. The plaintiff-appellant Felomino Elomin[a] is declared the lawful owner of Lot 922 erroneously covered by OCT No. P-4884 in the name of the defendant-appellee Leticia Ramirez. The defendant-appellant is ordered to reconvey the property to the plaintiff-appellant, and the Register of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna to cancel the defendant-appellee's OCT No. P4884 and issue a new TCT to the plaintiff-appellant Felomino Elomina.Ramirez received a copy of the foregoing Decision on October 17, 2011.30 After 17 days from receipt thereof, or on November 3, 2011, she filed a Motion for Reconsideration.31
SO ORDERED.29
Section 1. Period of filing. - A party may file a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof, with proof of service on the adverse party. (Emphasis supplied)Rule 36, Section 2 of the same Rules also provides that a judgment or final order shall become final unless a Motion for Reconsideration is timely filed, to wit:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Section 2. Entry of Judgments and Final Orders. - If no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed within the time provided in these Rules, the judgment or final order shall forthwith be entered by the clerk in the book of entries of judgments. The date of finality of the judgment or final order shall be deemed to be the date of its entry. The record shall contain the dispositive part of the judgment or final order and shall be signed by the clerk, with a certificate that such judgment or final order has become final and executory. (Emphasis supplied)In the instant case, the following are the relevant dates: (i) On October 12, 2011 the appellate court issued its Decision; (ii) Ramirez received a copy of the appellate court's Decision on October 17, 2011;39 (iii) After 17 days from receipt thereof, or on November 3, 2011, she filed a Motion for Reconsideration;40 (iv) On December 21, 2011, the appellate court issued its Resolution denying the Motion since it was belatedly filed;41 and (v) On May 25, 2012, the appellate court issued a Resolution directing the issuance of an entry of judgment in CA-G.R. CV No. 92374.42
x x x x [She] entrusted the filing thereof to her son [Herdy Ramirez] who stayed at Antipolo City while she lived in Marikina City.Time and again, the Court has declared 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. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failure to do so .... leads to the loss of the right to appeal"44 , such as the instant case.
And because of [Leticia Ramirez's] old age and forgetfulness, the said decision was handed over by her to Herdy only on October 27, 2011 or five days prior to its expiration to file a Motion for Reconsideration.
x x x
Herdy had to look for a lawyer during those times that can render services to them .... in submitting the Motion for Reconsideration before the deadline - November 2, 2011[,] in lieu of November 1, 2011 because the latter date is an official holiday.
x x x
Nonetheless, the said Motion for Reconsideration was finished exactly on the deadline period (November 2, 2012).
x x x
Yet, despite the copies of the said Motion for Reconsideration being timely sent by registered mail on November 2, 2011 by Herdy himself at the Marikina Post Office to the addresses and parties in said case, Herdy who travelled immediately to the Court of Appeals to personally file the said Motion for Reconsideration (MR) arrived therein before the closing hours that afternoon but was not immediately accommodated because he was required by the Court of Appeals personnel to photocopy certain requirements for the filing of the subject Motion.
But after finishing all the photocopies of the required documents at the Court of Appeals during that afternoon, the office where the motion is to be filed had already closed business transactions for that day, nonetheless, a court personnel advised Herdy to file the said Motion on the next day (November 3, 2011).
x x x
Believing in good faith that the Motion for Reconsideration can still be filed on the next day (November 3, 2012), Herdy immediately filed the said Motion on November 3, 2012.43
It should be emphasized that procedural rules are tools designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts and litigants alike are, thus, enjoined to abide strictly by the rules. Although the Court, in some cases, permits a relaxation in the application of the rules, this was never intended to forge a bastion for erring litigants to violate the rules with impunity. It is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, but it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.49The instant case is no exception to the foregoing rule. Thus, due to Ramirez's disregard of the Rules, the appellate court was justified in denying her motion.
[A] [final judgment] may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land.WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed Court of Appeals' May 25, 2012 Resolution which ordered the issuance of an Entry of Judgment of its October 12, 2011 Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 92374 is hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Once a judgment becomes final, the court or tribunal loses jurisdiction, and any modified judgment that it issues, as well as all proceedings taken for this purpose are null and void.
Endnotes:
* Elomino in some parts of the records.
** The Court of Appeals is dropped as party respondent pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
1Rollo, pp. 3-25.
2 Id. at 27; issued by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon, Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Manuel M. Barrios.
3 CA rollo, pp. 116-124; penned by Associate Justice Mario L. Guariña III and concurred in by Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Manuel M. Barrios.
4 Id. at 170.
5 Id. at 129-140.
6 Id. at 116.
7 Id. at 117.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 117-118.
11 Id. at 118.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 97-103; penned by Presiding Judge Teodoro N. Solis.
15 Id. at 102 and 119.
16 Id. at 119.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 103.
19 Id. at 119.
20 Id. at 120.
21 Id. at 105-106.
22 Id. at 120.
23 Id. at 58-59.
24 Id. at 70-74.
25 Id. at 120.
26 Id. at 116-124.
27 Id. at 120-122.
28 Id. at 123.
29 Id.
30 Id. at 129.
31 Id. at 129-139.
32 Id. at 170.
33 Id. at 39, 110 and 170.
34Rollo, p. 27.
35 Id. at 16 and 39.
36 CA rollo, p. 174.
37Rollo, pp. 13-14.
38 Id. at 11-12.
39 CA rollo, p. 129.
40 Id. at 129-130.
41 Id. at 39, 110 and 170.
42Rollo, pp. 16 and 39.
43 Id. at 11-12.
44Dimaandal v. Ilagan, 802 Phil. 546, 553-554 (2016); See also Cortal v. Inaki A. Larrazabal Enterprises, 817 Phil. 464, 474-475 (2017).
45Prieto v. Alpadi Development Corp.(Resolution), 715 Phil. 705, 719 (2013), citing Neplum, Inc. v. Orbeso, 433 Phil. 844, 868 (2002).
46Santos v. Litton Mills, 667 Phil. 640, 642 (2011).
47 See Spouses Bergonia v. Court of Appeals, 680 Phil. 334, 343 (2012).
48 730 Phil. 444 (2014).
49 Id. at 459.
50Rollo, p. 12.
51 Rules of Court, Rule 43, sec. 4:
Section 4. Period of appeal. - The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed. Upon proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the docket fee before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) days.
52Candelaria v. RTC, Br. 42, City of San Fernando, 739 Phil. 1, 8 (2014).
53 Id.
54 Id. at 9.
55Sonic Steel Industries, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 640 Phil. 203, 209 (2010).
56 679 Phil. 463, 476-477 (2012).
57Gatmaytan v. Sps. Dolor, 806 Phil. 1, 8 (2017).
58 Id. at 9.cralawredlibrary