Professional Documents
Culture Documents
383,JULY2,2002 625
Mesinavs.Meer
*
G.R.No.146845.July2,2002.
SPOUSESMICHAELANGELOandGRACEMESINA,petitioners,
vs.HUMBERTOD.MEER,respondent.
*THIRDDIVISION.
626
626 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Mesinavs.Meer
theremedyofpetitionforreliefintheCourtofAppeals.Petitionersargue
thatapartfromthischange,thepresentRuleextendstheremedyofreliefto
includejudgmentsorordersoftheCourtofAppealssincetheRuleusesthe
phraseanycourt.Wedisagree.TheproceduralchangeinRule38isinline
with Rule 5, prescribing uniform procedure for municipal and regional trial
courts and designation of municipal/metropolitan trial courts as courts of
record. While Rule 38 uses the phrase any court, it refers only to
municipal/metropolitanandregionaltrialcourts.TheprocedureintheCourt
of Appeals and the Supreme Court are governed by separate provisions of
the Rules of Court and may, from time to time, be supplemented by
additional rules promulgated by the Supreme Court through resolutions or
circulars. As it stands, neither the Rules of Court nor the Revised Internal
RulesoftheCourtofAppealsallowtheremedyofpetitionforreliefinthe
CourtofAppeals.
SameSameSameEquityTheSupremeCourtwillnotallowaparty,
inguiseofequity,tobenefitfromitsownnegligence.Ascorrectlypointed
out by the Court of Appeals, the petitioners allegation of extrinsic fraud
should have been brought at issue in the Metropolitan Trial Court. If they
truly believe that the default of the spouses Mesina prejudiced their rights,
they should have questioned this from the beginning. Yet, they chose to
participateintheproceedingsandactivelypresentedtheirdefense.Andtheir
efforts were rewarded as the Metropolitan Trial Court ruled in their favor.
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.
SameSameSameAttorneysItisasettledrulethatreliefwillnotbe
grantedtoapartywhoseekstoberelievedfromtheeffectsofthejudgment
when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence, or a
mistaken mode of procedure In exceptional cases, when the mistake of
counsel is so palpable that it amounts to gross negligence, the Supreme
Courtaffordsapartyasecondopportunitytovindicatehisright.Finally,
it is a settled rule that relief will not be granted to a party who seeks to be
relievedfromtheeffectsofthejudgmentwhenthelossoftheremedyatlaw
wasduetohisownnegligence,oramistakenmodeofprocedureotherwise,
thepetitionforreliefwillbetantamounttorevivingtherightofappealwhich
has already been lost either because of inexcusable negligence or due to
mistaken mode of procedure by counsel. Petitioners, however, place the
blameontheircounselandinvokehonestmistakeoflaw.
627
VOL.383,JULY2,2002 627
Mesinavs.Meer
They contend that they lack legal education, hence, were not aware of the
required period for filing an appeal. 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
opportunityisunavailingintheinstantcase,especiallysincepetitionershave
squanderedthevariousopportunitiesavailabletothematthedifferentstages
ofthiscase.Publicinterestdemandsanendtoeverylitigationandabelated
efforttoreopenacasethathasalreadyattainedfinalitywillservenopurpose
otherthantodelaytheadministrationofjustice.
PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionoftheCourtof
Appeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
GrajoT.Albanoforpetitioners.
R.P.NogalesLawOfficeforrespondent.
PUNO,J.:
1
Beforeusisapetitionforreviewoncertiorari underRule45ofthe
RulesofCourt,assailingtwoResolutionsoftheCourtofAppealsin
CAGR SP No. 52942 dated October2 10, 2000 and January 26,
2001,respectively.ThefirstResolution deniedpetitionersPetition
3
for Relief from Judgment while the second Resolution denied
reconsiderationthereof.Theantecedentfactsareasfollows:
RespondentHumbertoMeerisaregisteredownerofaparcelof
land located at Lot 15, Block 5, Pandacan, Manila evidenced by
TCTNo.158886.SometimeinJune1993,heappliedforaloanto
construct a house thereon. However, he discovered that his
certificate of title has been cancelled and a new one, TCT No.
166074, was issued in the name of spouses Sergio and Lerma
Bunquin. The latter acquired said property by virtue of a deed of
saledatedJune3,1985purportedlyexecutedbyrespondentintheir
4
favor.
_____________
1Rollo,pp.922.
JusticesRomeoA.BrawnerandAndresB.Reyes,Jr.,Rollo,pp.2425.
3Id.,p.27.
628
628 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Mesinavs.Meer
______________
No.166704wasinthenameofLermaD.Bunquin,marriedtoSergioBunquin.See
Records,p.183.
5Id.,pp.5154.
6Ibid.TCTNo.216518wasinthenameofMichaelangeloG.Mesina,marriedto
GraceDomingo.SeeRecords,p.186.
7Ibid.
8Id.,p.56.
629
VOL.383,JULY2,2002 629
Mesinavs.Meer
Asabasicrule,everypersondealingwithregisteredlandmaysafelyrelyon
thecorrectnessofthecertificateoftitleandissuedthereforeandthelawwill
nolongerobligetogobeyondthecertificatetodeterminetheconditionofthe
property(DirectorofLandsvs.Abache,73Phil.606).Also,personsdealing
with the property covered by the Torrens certificate of title are not required
togobeyondwhatappearsonthefaceofthetitle(Pinovs.CA,198SCRA
434).
Measured by the above criteria, defendantspouses Mesina were indeed
purchasers in good faith and purchasers for value of subject property, and
consequently,theyhavetherighttothepossessionthereofwhichispresently
titledintheirnames.xxx
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint
against defendantspouses Michael and Grace Mesina and the Register of
DeedsofManila.ThecounterclaimofdefendantspousesMesinaagainstthe
plaintiffisherebydeniedforlackofmerit.
DefendantspousesSergioandLermaBunquinareordered:
_____________
9Id.,pp.6162.
10 The decision was penned by Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas of RTC Manila, Branch 7. See
Rollo,pp.6482.
630
630 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Mesinavs.Meer
_____________
11Id.,pp.8182.
12SeeRollo,pp.8395.
13Rollo,pp.2830.
631
VOL.383,JULY2,2002 631
Mesinavs.Meer
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
MetropolitanCourtofManila,pursuanttoSection1,Rule38ofthe1997
_____________
14Rollo,pp.3031.Petitionersallegedthat:
a.) ThenotarizedDeedofSalebetweenrespondentandtheBunquinsshall,foralllegal
intents and purposes, be presumed genuine, authentic and regular in the absence of
prooforevidencetothecontrarypursuanttoRule131,section5oftheRevisedRules
ofCourtwhichgivesfavorablepresumptionstoprivatetransactions.
b.) Toovercomesuchpresumption,respondentshouldhaveadducedevidenceinsupport
ofhisallegationsotherthanhisselfservingandgratuitousdenialthathissignatureon
saidDeedofSaleisfakecomingasitdoesfromaninterestedpartyintheinstantcase.
c.) Further,respondentaswellasthelowercourts,couldhaveeasilysecuredtheservices
ofahandwritingexperttoestablishtheallegation.Butnosuchexpertwassoughtand
the lower court on its own motion and instance relied on the identification cards
presentedbytherespondenthimselfandcomparedthesamewiththesignatureonthe
Deedexecutedeleven(11)yearsago.
d.) Had the signatures been subjected to scientific examination and comparison by an
impartialexpertwitness,theDeedwouldhavebeendeterminedtobeauthenticandthe
signature genuine. As such, the position of the petitioner being purchasers for value
andingoodfaithwouldhaveprevailed.
e.) Letitnotbeoveremphasizedthatanotarypublicparticipatedintheexecutionofsaid
Deed of Sale giving rise to the presumptions, which were not overcome but the
respondent, that official duty has been regularly performed and that the ordinary
courseofbusinesshasbeenfollowed.
632
632 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Mesinavs.Meer
RevisedRulesofCivilProcedureasamended.Astothesecondground,the
petitioner spouses who were the prevailing party before the Metropolitan
TrialCourtofManila,didnotmentiontheallegedextrinsicfraudwhenthe
casewasonappealbeforetheRegionalTrialCourt.Petitionerscannotnow
challengethedecisionofthisCourtforthefraudallegedlyperpetratedinthe
courtoforigin.
Besides, it is extremely doubtful that the remedy of a petition for relief
underRule38maybeavailedoffromajudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsin
theexerciseofitsappellatejurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petitioners Petition for Relief
fromJudgmentisDENIEDforlackofmerit.
15
SOORDERED.
_____________
15Supranote2.
16Supranote1,pp.1214.
17Palmares,etal.vs.Jimenez,etal.,90Phil.659(1951).
633
VOL.383,JULY2,2002 633
Mesinavs.Meer
18
actionordefense,asthecasemaybe. Mostimportantly,itshould
befiledwiththesamecourtwhichrenderedthedecision,viz.:
Section1.Petitionforrelieffromjudgment,order,orotherproceedings.
When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is
thereaftertakenagainstapartyinanycourtthroughfraud,accident,mistake,
orexcusablenegligence,hemayfileapetitioninsuchcourtandinthesame
19
caseprayingthatthejudgment,orderorproceedingbesetaside.
Petitioners argue that apart from this change, the present Rule
extends the remedy of relief to include judgments or orders of
20
the
Court of Appeals since the Rule uses the phrase any court. We
disagree.
_____________
18Rule38,sec.2.
19Id.,sec.1.
20Supranote1,pp.1415.
634
634 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Mesinavs.Meer
TheproceduralchangeinRule38isinlinewithRule5,prescribing 21
uniform procedure for municipal and regional trial courts and
designation
22
of municipal/metropolitan trial courts as courts of
record. WhileRule38usesthephraseanycourt,itrefersonlyto
23
municipal/metropolitanandregionaltrialcourts.
The procedure in the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
24
Court
aregovernedbyseparateprovisionsoftheRulesofCourt andmay,
fromtimetotime,besupplementedbyadditionalrulespromulgated
bytheSupremeCourtthroughresolutionsorcirculars.Asitstands,
neither the Rules25of Court nor the Revised Internal Rules of the
Court of Appeals allow the remedy of petition for relief in the
CourtofAppeals.
Petitioners beg this Court, on equitable grounds, not to strictly
construetheRules,arguingthattheironlyearthlypossessionisat
26
stake. Indeed,incertainoccasions,thisCourthas,intheinterestof
substantialjusticeandinexerciseofitsequityjurisdiction,construed
theRulesofCourtwithliberality.
Nevertheless,thecircumstancesobtaininginthepresentcasedo
notconvincethisCourttotakeexception.
AscorrectlypointedoutbytheCourtofAppeals,thepetitioners
allegationofextrinsicfraudshouldhavebeenbroughtatissueinthe
MetropolitanTrialCourt.Iftheytrulybelievethatthedefaultofthe
spousesMesinaprejudicedtheirrights,theyshouldhavequestioned
thisfromthebeginning.Yet,theychosetoparticipate
_____________
shall be the same as in the Regional Trial Court, except (a) where a particular
provision expressly or impliedly applies only to either of said courts, or (b) in civil
casesgovernedbytheRuleonSummaryProcedure.
22SeeR.A.No.7691(1994).
23See Florenz D. Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium (1999), Vol. 1, pp. 391
392JoseY.Feria,1997RulesofCivilProcedureAnnotated(2000),p.111.
24SeeRules4456.
25AsamendedbySupremeCourtResolutionsdatedOctober20,1988,November3,
1988,February27,1991,April1,1992,November24,1992andJune14,1993.
26Supranote1,p.17.
635
VOL.383,JULY2,2002 635
Mesinavs.Meer
_____________
27Espinosavs.Yatco,7SCRA78(1963).
28Rollo,p.30.
636
636 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Re:AdministrativeCaseNo.44oftheRTC,Br.IV,TagbilaranCity,
AgainstAtty.SamuelC.Occea
SOORDERED.
Panganiban,SandovalGutierrezandCarpio,JJ.,concur.
Petitiondenied,resolutionsaffirmed.
o0o
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.