Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Vs. HUMBERTO D. MEER, Respondent.: Spouses Michaelangelo and Grace Mesina, Petitioners
Vs. HUMBERTO D. MEER, Respondent.: Spouses Michaelangelo and Grace Mesina, Petitioners
July 2, 2002]
DECISION
PUNO, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,
[1]
assailing two Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 52942 dated
October 10, 2000 and January 26, 2001, respectively. The first Resolution denied [2]
petitioners Petition for Relief from Judgment while the second Resolution denied [3]
On January 12, 1994, respondent sought the cancellation of TCT No. 166074 with
the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 10. On the same day, a notice of lis
pendens was annotated at the back of TCT No. 166074. [5]
On June 15, 1994, while the case was pending, TCT No. 166074 was cancelled and
replaced by TCT No. 216518 issued in the name of the petitioners, spouses
Michaelangelo and Grace Mesina. It appears that the subject property has been
conveyed to the petitioners on September 28, 1993, even prior to the annotation of lis
pendens. The Absolute Deed of Sale evidencing the conveyance was notarized on the
same day, including the payment of taxes appurtenant thereto. The transfer of the title
from Lerma Bunquin to petitioners was effected only on June 15, 1994 because of some
requirements imposed by the National Housing Authority. [6]
Defendant-spouses Bunquin never appeared during the hearings, leading the court
to declare them in default. Petitioners, however, participated actively in defense of their
position. [8]
In its Decision dated February 16, 1998, the trial court ruled that the alleged sale
between Meer and Banquin was fraudulent. However, petitioners were adjudged buyers
in good faith and thus were entitled to the possession of the subject property. Pertinent
portion of the decision reads:
As a basic rule, every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on
the correctness of the certificate of title and issued therefore and the law will
no longer oblige to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the
property (Director of Lands vs. Abache, 73 Phil. 606). Also, persons dealing
with the property covered by the Torrens certificate of title are not required to
go beyond what appears on the face of the title (Pino vs. CA, 198 SCRA 434).
1. To pay plaintiff the value of the subject property based on the prevailing
price on the date of the decision;
SO ORDERED. [9]
Respondent Meer filed a Motion for Reconsideration against the said Decision but
the trial court denied the same. Respondent thereafter filed an Appeal with the Regional
Trial Court.
Reversing the ruling of the MeTC, the Regional Trial Court ruled that petitioners
[10]
were not purchasers in good faith, reasoning that it is the registration of the Deed of
Sale, and not the date of its consummation that will confer title to the property. Since the
Deed of Sale was registered subsequent to the annotation of the lis pendens,
petitioners were bound by the outcome of the case, viz:
Having thus correctly ruled that the Deed of Sale between plaintiff Humberto
Meer and Sps. Bunquin was a forgery and that the signature of Humberto
Meer was forged and having recognized that a priorly registered lis pendens is
superior to a belatedly registered Deed of Sale because the efficacy of the
belatedly registered Deed of Sale depends upon the outcome of the case for
which the lis pendens was annotated and having come to the conclusion that
the case filed by Humberto Meer against the Bunquin is legally correct and
justified, this court therefore has no other alternative but to rule in favor of the
appellant and order the cancellation not only of the title issued in favor of the
Bunquin but also of the title issued in favor of the Mesinas. The Court cannot
consider the latter as buyers in good faith.
SO ORDERED. [11]
Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the ruling of the
Regional Trial Court in a Resolution dated May 10, 2000. [12]
On July 17, 2000 and after reglementary period for appeal has lapsed, petitioners
filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment and prayed that the Court of Appeals set aside
its Resolution dated May 10, 2000 for the following reasons: (a) extrinsic fraud was
committed which prevented petitioners from presenting his case to the court and/or was
used to procure the judgment without fair submission of the controversy; (b) mistake
and excusable negligence has prevented the petitioner from taking an appeal within the
prescribed period; and (c) petitioner has good and substantial defense in his action. [13]
On the first ground, petitioners argued that there has been collusion between the
respondent and the Bunquins during the trial of the case at the Metropolitan Trial Court.
Had the Bunquins testified in court as to the validity of the Deed of Sale as well as the
authenticity of the respondents signature, petitioners argued that the result would have
been in their favor. Anent the second ground, petitioners averred that their failure to file
the requisite appeal on time was largely due to the delay of counsel of record to
produce the requested documents of the case. Finally, petitioners claim that they have
good and substantial defense. [14]
As aptly pointed out by the respondent, the first ground raised by the
petitioner spouses should have been filed before the court of origin, the
Metropolitan Court of Manila, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 38 of the 1997
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure as amended. As to the second ground, the
petitioner spouses who were the prevailing party before the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Manila, did not mention the alleged extrinsic fraud when the case was
on appeal before the Regional Trial Court. Petitioners cannot now challenge
the decision of this Court for the fraud allegedly perpetrated in the court of
origin.
Besides, it is extremely doubtful that the remedy of a petition for relief under
Rule 38 may be availed of from a judgment of the Court of Appeals in the
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED. [15]
Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied, hence, this Petition for Review
raising as issue the availability of Petition for Relief under Rule 38, as a remedy against
the judgment of the Court of Appeals promulgated in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction. If the remedy is thus available, petitioners pray that this Court rule whether
or not the grounds relied by them are sufficient to give due course to the petition.[16]
Under the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition for relief must be filed
within sixty (60) days after the petitioner learns of the judgment, final order or other
proceeding to be set aside and must be accompanied with affidavits showing the fraud,
accident, mistake, or excusable negligence relied upon, and the facts constituting the
petitioners good and substantial cause of action or defense, as the case may be. Most [18]
importantly, it should be filed with the same court which rendered the decision, viz:
As revised, Rule 38 radically departs from the previous rule as it now allows the
Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court which decided the case or issued the order to hear
the petition for relief. Under the old rule, petition for relief from the judgment or final
order of municipal trial courts should be filed with the regional trial court, viz:
Section 2. Petition to Court of First Instance for relief from the judgment
or other proceeding thereof.- When a judgment order is entered, or any
other proceeding is taken against a party in a Court of First Instance through
fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in
such court and in the same cause praying that the judgment, order or
proceeding be set aside.
Petitioners argue that apart from this change, the present Rule extends the remedy
of relief to include judgments or orders of the Court of Appeals since the Rule uses the
phrase any court. We disagree.
[20]
The procedural change in Rule 38 is in line with Rule 5, prescribing uniform
procedure for municipal and regional trial courts and designation of [21]
municipal/metropolitan trial courts as courts of record. While Rule 38 uses the phrase
[22]
The procedure in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court are governed by
separate provisions of the Rules of Court and may, from time to time, be supplemented
[24]
Petitioners beg this Court, on equitable grounds, not to strictly construe the Rules,
arguing that their only earthly possession is at stake. Indeed, in certain occasions, this
[26]
Court has, in the interest of substantial justice and in exercise of its equity jurisdiction,
construed the Rules of Court with liberality.
Nevertheless, the circumstances obtaining in the present case do not convince this
Court to take exception.
When the respondent appealed the case to the Regional Trial Court, they never
raised this issue. Even after the Regional Trial Court reversed the finding of the MeTC,
and the Court of Appeals sustained this reversal, petitioners made no effort to bring this
issue for consideration. This Court will not allow petitioners, in guise of equity, to benefit
from their own negligence.
The same is true with regard to the defenses forwarded by the petitioners in support
of their petition. These contentions should have been raised in the MeTC, as they have
been available to them since the beginning.
Finally, it is a settled rule that relief will not be granted to a party who seeks to be
relieved from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to
his own negligence, or a mistaken mode of procedure; otherwise, the petition for relief
will be tantamount to reviving the right of appeal which has already been lost either
because of inexcusable negligence or due to mistaken mode of procedure by counsel.
Petitioners, however, place the blame on their counsel and invoke honest mistake of
[27]
law. They contend that they lack legal education, hence, were not aware of the required
period for filing an appeal.
[28]
In exceptional cases, when the mistake of counsel is so palpable that it amounts to
gross negligence, this Court affords a party a second opportunity to vindicate his right.
But this opportunity is unavailing in the instant case, especially since petitioners have
squandered the various opportunities available to them at the different stages of this
case. Public interest demands an end to every litigation and a belated effort to reopen a
case that has already attained finality will serve no purpose other than to delay the
administration of justice.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, this petition is DENIED for lack of merit and the assailed
Resolutions of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.