Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Decision: Court of Appeals Twelfth Division
Decision: Court of Appeals Twelfth Division
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
TWELFTH DIVISION
CAMILO S. CASTILLON, CA-G.R. SP No. 164451
CONCEPCION GABAN, and all
persons claiming rights and Members:
interests under them,
Petitioners, BUESER, D. Q.,
Chairperson
FIEL-MACARAIG, G. C., and
*
- versus - LAUIGAN, R.R. R., JJ.
Promulgated:
CARMEL DEVELOPMENT, INC., March 3, 2021
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
BUESER, J.:
The Facts
*
Acting Third Member per Office Order No. 33-21-RSF dated 29 January 2021.
1
Rollo, p. 3.
2
Rollo, p. 15.
3
Rollo, p. 18.
CA-G.R. SP No. 164451
DECISION Page - 2 -
_________________________________________________________________________
SO ORDERED.”10
Petitioners aver that the trial courts, both the MeTC and RTC,
erred in not reconsidering the belated filing of their Answer and
Memorandum, respectively. Petitioners further posited that pursuant
to Section 6, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court and Article 24 of the Civil
Code, the trial courts should have afforded them liberality as they
were at a disadvantage. Finally, petitioners claim that they have a
valid defense in the unlawful detainer suit filed against them.
13
Rollo, p. 59.
14
Rollo, p. 74.
15
Rollo, p. 77.
16
Rollo, p. 80, Motion to Remand Records dated 17 October 2019.
17
Rollo, p. 18.
18
Rollo, p. 179.
19
Rollo, p. 171.
20
Rollo, p. 197.
CA-G.R. SP No. 164451
DECISION Page - 6 -
_________________________________________________________________________
TCT No. C-3347521. They claim that CDI's remedy should have been
an action to annul petitioner's title instead of an ejectment suit.
Section 36. Summary procedures in special cases. – In Metropolitan Trial Courts and
Municipal Trial Courts with at least two branches, the Supreme Court may designate one or
more branches thereof to try exclusively forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, those
involving violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations, violations of the rental law, and such
other cases requiring summary disposition as the Supreme Court may determine. The
Supreme Court shall adopt special rules or procedures applicable to such cases in order to
achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination thereof without regard to
technical rules. Such simplified procedures may provide that affidavits and counter-affidavits
may be admitted in lieu of oral testimony and that the periods for filing pleadings shall be non-
extendible. (Emphasis and underscoring Ours).
CA-G.R. SP No. 164451
DECISION Page - 7 -
_________________________________________________________________________
At this point, it bears stressing that the rationale for the creation
of the Rules on Summary Procedure is to achieve an expeditious
determination of cases without regard to technical rules. Thus,
petitioners' assertion that it was erroneous for MeTC not to admit
their belatedly filed answer on account of their counsel's negligence
may seem to be meritorious. However, settled is the rule that it is
within the discretion of the trial court to permit the filing of an answer
even beyond the reglementary period, provided that there is
justification for the belated action and there is no showing that the
defendant intended to delay the case24.
24
Hector Hernandez vs. Susan San Pedro Agoncillo, G.R. No. 194122, 11 October 2012, citing
Philippine National Bank v. Deang Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 177931, December 8,
2008, 573 SCRA 312, 319, citing Spouses Ampeloquio, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
124243, June 15, 2000, 333 SCRA 465, 470.
CA-G.R. SP No. 164451
DECISION Page - 8 -
_________________________________________________________________________
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx”
“xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx”
“xxx
[Emphasis Supplied
xxx”
(Sgd.)
FRANCISCO G. ROMERO
Register of Deeds”
and Norma Beluso, joined by her husband Noli Beluso, G.R. No. 196598, 17 January 2018,
citing Cesar Naguit v. San Miguel Corp., 761 Phil. 184 (2015).
CA-G.R. SP No. 164451
DECISION Page - 13 -
_________________________________________________________________________
SO ORDERED.
DANTON Q. BUESER
Associate Justice
26
Entry No. 2908-10 TCT No. C-33475
CONSULTA NO. 3127
“Decision dated January 29, 1988 in G. R. No. 70484, entitled Roman C. Tuason,
et.al., Versus Register of Deeds of Caloocan City et.al., declaring unconstitutional Presidential
Decree No. 293 pursuant to which this particular title was issued did not confer upon the
Register of Deeds sufficient authority to cancel the same. It is basic in subsequent registration
that once a certificate of title or a memorandum thereof has been entered in the registration
book and entered by the Register of Deeds, the same cannot be erased, amended, altered
and much less cancelled, UNLESS in cases provided by law or upon express Order by the
Court (Consulta No. ___, Sec. 109, P.D. No. 1529); Without such an Order therefore the same
remains UNCANCELLED. It cannot be deemed INVALIDATED by INFERENCE or by mere
declaration of P.D. No. 293.”
(Sgd.)
REGULO B. COLOMA
Register of Deeds
CA-G.R. SP No. 164451
DECISION Page - 14 -
_________________________________________________________________________
WE CONCUR:
GERALDINE C. FIEL-MACARAIG
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
DANTON Q. BUESER
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Twelfth Division