Habana, Roselle. S.

Legal Writing

SINGSON ET AL VS. LARRAZABAL G.R. NO. 199107 AUGUST 30, 2017, J.

LEONEN
Facts:
Larrazabal Entreprises owned three parcels of land in Sitio Coob, Barangay
Libertad, Ormoc City. In 1988, these parcels of land were expatriated in favor of the
petitioner, pursuant to P.D. No. 228, as amended by E.O. No. 228. New transfer
certificates were issued to petitioners.
In 1999, Larrazabal Enterprises filed its Action for Recovery against the
Department of Agrarian Reform and the petitioners before the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). It alleged that DAR and the petitioners violated
the just compensation requirement. Petitioners denied non-payment by presenting
Landbank certifications of payments deposited in the name of Larrazabal Enterprises.
Regional Adjudicator Diloy ruled in favor of the Larrazabal Enterprises and ordered for
the three parcels of land be restored to its ownership.
Petitioners appealed and was granted a ruling in their favor. DARAB held that the
actions was already barred by prescription and gave credence to the certificates issued by
Landbank. Larrazabal filed a Motion for Reconsideration. DARAN reversed its own
decision by saying that Larrazabal had been denied due process because of the non-
payment of just compensation. Petitioners filed a Petition for Review before the Court of
Appeals. Their petition was dismissed because of formal and technical errors.

Issue: WON the dismissal of petitioners’ appeal was justified by the errors noted by the
Court of Appeals

Ruling/Ratio: NO. The Court finds that the Petition for Review falls within the
exceptions to the customary strict application of procedural rules. The Court has
previously overlooked more compelling procedural lapses, such as the period for filing
pleadings and appeals, and the indication of the counsel’s place of issue of his respective IBP
number.
Jurisprudence has considered the lack of verification as a mere formal, rather than a
jurisdictional, defect that is not fatal. Thus, courts may order the correction of a pleading or
act on an unverified pleading, if the circumstances would warrant the dispensing of the
procedural requirement to serve the ends of justice.
The Court of Appeals was harsh in denying petitioners the opportunity to
exhaustively ventilate and argue their case. Rather than dwelling on procedural minutiae, the
Court of Appeals should have been impelled by the greater interest of justice. It should have
enabled a better consideration of the intricate issues of the application of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law, social justice, expropriation, and just compensation. The reversals of
rulings at the level of the DARAB could have been taken as an indication that the matters at
stake were far from being so plain that they should be ignored on mere technicalities. The
better part of its discretion dictated a solicitous stance towards petitioners. The present
Petition must be granted. The Court of Appeals must give due course to petitioners' appeal to
enable a better appreciation of the myriad substantive issues which have otherwise not been
pleaded and litigated before the Court by the parties.
MAGSINO VS. DE OCAMPO G.R. NO. 166944 AUGUST 18, 2014, J. BERSAMIN
Facts:
The petitioner filed a complaint for forcible entry with payer for preliminary
injunction and/or temporary restraining order in the Metropolitan Trial Court in Antipolo
City against the respondents. He alleged that he was the owner in fee simple of a 10-
hectare land in Antipolo City for more than thirty years. On February 5, 2000, through
force, intimidation, threats and strategy, and with aid of armed men, unlawfully
bulldozed the eastern and northern portions of his land. He filed a motion for preliminary
injunction before the MTC in Rizal.
Respondent countered with a registered title in the land by virtue of the original
certificate of title issued to her mother. Her co-respondent allegedly owned the land
being occupied by the petitioner.
MTC ruled in favor of the respondents and ordered the petitioner to vacate the
land. RTC affirmed this decision. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. Court of
Appeals dismissed the petition for review for lacking in copies of the pleadings and other
material portions as would support the allegations of the petitions. The court also denied
the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration for evident want of merit.

Issue: WON the CA erred in dismissing the petition for review on the ground that the
petitioner did not comply with Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court

Ruling/Ratio: No. In Galvez v. CA, the Court recognized three guideposts for the CA to
consider in determining whether or not the rules of procedure should be relaxed.
“First, not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached to
the petition. Only those which are relevant and pertinent must accompany it. The
test of relevancy is whether the document in question will support the material
allegations in the petition, whether said document will make out a prima facie
case of grave abuse of discretion as to convince the court to give due course to the
petition.
Second, even if a document is relevant and pertinent to the petition, it need not
be appended if it is shown that the contents thereof can also (sic) found in another
document already attached to the petition. Thus, if the material allegations in a
position paper are summarized in a questioned judgment, it will suffice that only
a certified true copy of the judgment is attached.
 Third, a petition lacking an essential pleading or part of the case record may still
be given due course or reinstated (if earlier dismissed) upon showing that
petitioner later submitted the documents required, or that it will serve the higher
interest of justice that the case be decided on the merits. The guideposts, which
equally apply to a petition for review filed in the CA under Rule 42, reflect that
the significant determinant of the sufficiency of the attached documents is
whether the accompanying documents support the allegations of the petition.”
The petitioner omitted the following documents: initiatory complaint which included all
material facts necessary to support the petitioner’s cause of action, answer of the
respondents, motion to dismiss, and the memoranda on appeal that both parties filed in
the RTC. All mention documents were relevant in the proper consideration and
resolution of the merits of the appeal of the petitioner. Under the second guidepost,
which stipulates that a document, although relevant to the petition for review, need not
be appended if it is shown that its contents could be found in or could be drawn from
another document already attached to the petition, the attached copy of the MTC
decision was found to be completely illegible. The decision also did not contain issues
relied upon by the petitioner in his appeal in the CA. Under the third guidepost, the
petitioner refused to submit the omitted documents because of his stubborn position that
the CA should have asked for the original documents to be elevated before it. Therefore,
the petition is denied. The Court affirms the decision of the CA.
RIZAL ET AL VS. NAREDO G.R. NO. 151898 MARCH 14, 2012, J. REYES
Facts:
Petitioners commenced a civil case against respondents before te Court of First
Instance of Laguna involving the accretion of a two-hectare land located in Calamba. The
CFI, the CA and Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and ordered respondents to
vacate the said land.
To satisfy the money judgment, the provincial sheriff levied upon Lot Nos. 252 and
269, and the house erected on Lot No. 252. Lot No. 252 was registered under the heirs of
Gervacia Cantillano. After the required bond was posted by the petitioners, the provincial
sheriff declared them as the highest bidders in the auction sale. A final deed of sale was
issued to them. The validity of the execution of sale was assailed but the CFI declared its
validity. After the aforesaid judgment, the parties entered into a Compromise Agreement
approved by the CFI.
After ten years, Marcela and Leoncia assailed the Compromise Agreement. They
claimed that it was a forgery and their lawyer was not duly authorized for the purpose. They
filed a complaint before the RTC but the complaint was dismissed because of res judicata. On
appeal before the CA, the original records of the case were misplaced. The parties agreed to
have the case submitted based on the documents submitted. CA dismissed the appeal on the
grounds that the required page references to the records were not included in the brief. The
specific amount for damages were also not indicated in the prayer nor in the body of the
complaint.

Issue: WON the CA erred in dismissing the case on the aforementioned grounds

Ruling/ Ratio: No. Failure to observe the requirements under Sec.13 of Rule 44 of the Rules
of Court and to pay the correct docket fees is fatal to the appeal. The Court may be lenient in
some instances on formal defects of pleadings filed in court, but not when a litigant
continuously ignores technical rules, to the point of wanton disregard of the rationale behind
the rules. Such rules are designed for the proper and prompt disposition of cases before the
Court of Appeals. Failure to pay the correct docket fees within the reglementary period may
prevent the acceptance, admission or may even lead to the expungement of any complaint
petition, answer and other similar pleading.
Absent any proof that the respondents resorted to dilatory schemes and maneuvers to
prevent the execution of the Compromise Agreement, the Court fails to see how the mere
filing by the respondents of Civil Case No. 299-83-C on August 11, 1981 could have in any
way prevented or impeded the petitioners from executing the judgment in Civil Case No. 36-
C. Respondents' affirmative defenses of res judicata and lack of cause of action are sustained.
The decision of the appellate court and trial court is upheld.