Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • RTC Granted The Motion To Dismiss - The Instant Application For Original Registration Is

    Uploaded by

    Angel Mae
    35 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that procedural rules should be liberally construed in this case for the following reasons: 1) Procedural rules are meant to aid justice, not hinder it, and must yield when a stringent application would result in a failure of justice. 2) The petitioner's motions, though defective, cited meritorious grounds and presented exceptional circumstances that warranted liberal interpretation of the rules. 3) There was substantial compliance with notice requirements as the adverse parties were duly notified despite defects in the motions. Strictly construing the rules in this case would not serve substantial justice.

    Original Description:

    KK

    Original Title

    REM 4

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that procedural rules should be liberally construed in this case for the following reasons: 1) Procedural rules are meant to aid justice, not hinder it, and must yield when a stringent application would result in a failure of justice. 2) The petitioner's motions, though defective, cited meritorious grounds and presented exceptional circumstances that warranted liberal interpretation of the rules. 3) There was substantial compliance with notice requirements as the adverse parties were duly notified despite defects in the motions. Strictly construing the rules in this case would not serve substantial justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    35 views3 pages

    RTC Granted The Motion To Dismiss - The Instant Application For Original Registration Is

    Uploaded by

    Angel Mae
    The Supreme Court ruled that procedural rules should be liberally construed in this case for the following reasons: 1) Procedural rules are meant to aid justice, not hinder it, and must yield when a stringent application would result in a failure of justice. 2) The petitioner's motions, though defective, cited meritorious grounds and presented exceptional circumstances that warranted liberal interpretation of the rules. 3) There was substantial compliance with notice requirements as the adverse parties were duly notified despite defects in the motions. Strictly construing the rules in this case would not serve substantial justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    15. CITY OF DUMAGUETE V. PHIL PORTS AUTHORITY | G.R. No. 168973, Aug.

    24,
    2011
    Facts
    Petitioner City of Dumaguete, through Mayor Felipe Antonio B. Remollo (Remollo),
    filed before the RTC an Application for Original Registration of Title over a parcel of land with
    improvements, located at Barangay Looc, City of Dumaguete (subject property), under the
    Property Registration Decree. The application was docketed as LRC Case No. N-201.
    The RTC accordingly set the initial hearing of LRC Case No. N-201 and sent notices to
    the parties.
    The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of Lands, and respondent,
    represented by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, filed separate Oppositions to
    the application for registration of petitioner. Both the Republic and respondent averred that
    petitioner may not register the subject property in its name since petitioner had never been in
    open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the said property for at least 30 years
    immediately preceding the filing of the application; and the subject property remains to be a
    portion of the public domain which belongs to the Republic.
    Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, seeking the dismissal of LRC Case No. N-201 on
    the following grounds: that the RTC lacked jurisdiction to hear and decide the case; subject
    property is not alienable and disposable, since it is a foreshore land, hence not registerable. The
    RTC granted the Motion to Dismiss - the instant application for original registration is
    dismissed for lack of merit.
    Petitioner filed a MR and contended that the dismissal of its application was premature
    and tantamount to a denial of its right to due process. It has yet to present evidence to prove
    factual matters in support of its application. On the other hand, respondent filed an opposition
    stating that the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioner violated Sections 4, 5, and 6, Rule 15
    and Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. RTC: agreed with respondent; MR of petitioner
    was considered as not filed and did not toll the running of the period to file an appeal, rendering
    final and executory the order of dismissal of LRC Case No. N-201.

    However, after taking into consideration the Supplemental MR of petitioner, the RTC
    issued another Order dated December 7, 2000, setting aside its Order dated September 7, 2000 in
    the interest of justice and resolving to have a full-blown proceeding to determine factual issues in
    LRC Case No. N-201. Respondent filed MR – denied. Respondent went to CA by filing a
    Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. CA set aside RTC’s
    rulings. Petitioner filed MR – denied. Hence, this Petition for Review.

    Issue

    Whether procedural rules should be strictly construed in this case

    Ruling

    No. Procedural rules were conceived to aid the attainment of justice. If a stringent
    application of the rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the
    former must yield to the latter.
    In Basco v. Court of Appeals, we allowed a liberal application of technical rules of
    procedure, pertaining to the requisites of a proper notice of hearing, upon consideration of the
    importance of the subject matter of the controversy, as illustrated in well-settled cases, to wit:

    The liberal construction of the rules on notice of hearing is exemplified in Goldloop


    Properties, Inc. v. CA: “Admittedly, the filing of respondent-spouses' motion for reconsideration
    did not stop the running of the period of appeal because of the absence of a notice of hearing
    required in Secs. 3, 4 and 5, Rule 15, of the Rules of Court. As we have repeatedly held, a
    motion that does not contain a notice of hearing is a mere scrap of paper; it presents no question
    which merits the attention of the court. Being a mere scrap of paper, the trial court had no
    alternative but to disregard it. Such being the case, it was as if no motion for reconsideration was
    filed and, therefore, the reglementary period within which respondent-spouses should have filed
    an appeal expired on 23 November 1989. But, where a rigid application of that rule will result in
    a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice, then the rule may be relaxed, especially if a party
    successfully shows that the alleged defect in the questioned final and executory judgment is not
    apparent on its face or from the recitals contained therein. Technicalities may thus be
    disregarded in order to resolve the case. After all, no party can even claim a vested right in
    technicalities. Litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on the merits and not on
    technicalities.”

    Likewise, in Samoso v. CA, the Court ruled: “But time and again, the Court has stressed
    that the rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very strict and technical sense. The rules of
    procedure are used only to help secure not override substantial justice”

    In the case at bar, the Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for
    Reconsideration of petitioner, which sought the reversal of RTC Order dated September 7, 2000
    dismissing LRC Case No. N-201, cite meritorious grounds that justify a liberal application of
    procedural rules. The dismissal by the RTC of LRC Case No. N-201 for lack of jurisdiction is
    patently erroneous.

    The RTC Order dated September 7, 2000 has not yet become final and executory as
    petitioner was able to duly file a Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for
    Reconsideration of the same, which the RTC eventually granted in its Order dated December 7,
    2000. Admittedly, said motions filed by petitioner did not comply with certain rules of
    procedure. Ordinarily, such non-compliance would have rendered said motions as mere scraps of
    paper, considered as not having been filed at all, and unable to toll the reglementary period for an
    appeal. However, we find that the exceptional circumstances extant in the present case warrant
    the liberal application of the rules.

    Also, the Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration of
    the Order dated September 7, 2000 filed by petitioner did not comply with Section 11, Rule 13 of
    the Rules of Court, for these did not include a written explanation why service or filing thereof
    was not done personally. Nonetheless, this Court, passing upon Section 11 of Rule 13 of the
    Rules of Court, held that a court has the discretion to consider a pleading or paper as not filed if
    said rule is not complied with. The exercise of discretion must, necessarily consider the
    practicability of personal service, for Section 11 itself begins with the clause "whenever
    practicable."
    Counsel for petitioner holds office in Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, in the Visayas;
    while counsel for respondent holds office in Quezon City, Metro Manila, in Luzon. Given the
    considerable distance between the offices of these two counsels, personal service of pleadings
    and motions by one upon the other was clearly not practicable and a written explanation as to
    why personal service was not done would only be superfluous.

    In addition, we refer once more to the merits of the Motion for Reconsideration and
    Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC Order dated September 7, 2000 filed by
    petitioner, which justify the liberal interpretation of Section 11, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court in
    this case.

    Jurisprudence confirms that the requirements laid down in Sections 4, 5, and 6, Rule 15
    of the Rules of Court that the notice of hearing shall be directed to the parties concerned, and
    shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion, are mandatory. If not religiously
    complied with, they render the motion pro forma. As such, the motion is a useless piece of paper
    that will not toll the running of the prescriptive period.

    Yet, again, there were previous cases with peculiar circumstances that had compelled us
    to liberally apply the rules on notice of hearing and recognize substantial compliance with the
    same. Once such case is Philippine National Bank v. Paneda, where we adjudged: “Thus, even if
    the Motion may be defective for failure to address the notice of hearing of said motion to the
    parties concerned, the defect was cured by the court's taking cognizance thereof and the fact that
    the adverse party was otherwise notified of the existence of said pleading. There is substantial
    compliance with the foregoing rules if a copy of the said motion for reconsideration was
    furnished to the counsel of herein private respondents.”

    In the present case, records reveal that the notices in the Motion were addressed to the
    respective counsels of the private respondents and they were duly furnished with copies of the
    same as shown by the receipts signed by their staff or agents. Consequently, the Court finds that
    the petitioner substantially complied with the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court and
    existing jurisprudence on the requirements of motions and pleadings.

    You might also like