Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83079:57062&catid=1584&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 01:48:46+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 207266, June 25, 2014 - HEIRS OF PACIANO YABAO, REPRESENTED BY REMEDIOS CHAN, Petitioners, v. PAZ LENTEJAS VAN DER KOLK, Respondent.
HEIRS OF PACIANO YABAO, REPRESENTED BY REMEDIOS CHAN, Petitioners, v. PAZ LENTEJAS VAN DER KOLK, Respondent.
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the May 28, 2012 Decision1 and the May 2, 2013 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 04532, essentially dismissing the complaint of petitioners for ownership and possession for failure to prove it by the required quantum of evidence, though without prejudice.
The Heirs of Yabao prayed that they be declared the co-owners and possessors of a parcel of land designated as Lot 2473 located in Brgy. Capoocan, Calbayog City (subject lot); that possession thereof be restored to them; and that Van der Kolk be ordered to pay them attorney’s fees, litigation expenses as well as reasonable rental of P2,000.00 per month.
Copies of the summons and the complaint were served upon the attorney-in-fact of Van der Kolk, Ma. Narcisa Fabregaras-Ventures (Ventures), whom she authorized, among others, to institute and defend all actions for the protection of her rights and interests over her properties, including the subject lot, by virtue of a special power of attorney5 executed on August 22, 1999. It was noted in the Sheriff’s Return of Service6 that Van der Kolk was in the Netherlands at the time of the service.
On April 2, 2001, Van der Kolk filed a Motion to Dismiss7 the complaint anchored on the following grounds: 1] lack of jurisdiction by the MTCC over her person due to defective service of summons; and 2] lack of cause of action. Van der Kolk alleged that the service of summons should have been made in accordance with Section 15, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court because she was not actually residing in the Philippines. She contended that the predecessors-in-interest of the Heirs of Yabao had executed a joint affidavit on July 16, 1980, wherein they renounced their hereditary rights over the subject lot and declared that Faustina Yabao, mother of Van der Kolk, as its true owner.
On July 27, 2004, the MTCC issued a Resolution9 denying the motion to dismiss and holding that there was proper service of summons. It also denied the motion to declare defendant in default, stating that the motion to dismiss was seasonably filed. The MTCC further directed Van der Kolk to file an answer within 10 days from receipt of the aforesaid resolution.
On September 6, 2004, Van Der Kolk’s counsel, Atty. Felidito Dacut, filed a Manifestation with Motion10 praying that he be relieved as her counsel because she never contacted him about the case after he was informed that she had revoked the authority of Ventures and, thereafter, asked for the documents in his possession.
The Heirs of Yabao still reiterated their motion to declare Van der Kolk in default during the December 20, 2004 hearing because no answer had yet been filed.
On March 7, 2005, Van der Kolk, through her new counsel, Atty. Eduardo Tibo (Atty. Tibo), filed her Answer11 to the complaint which was appended to the Motion for Allowance12 To Belatedly File Defendant’s Answer.
Aggrieved, Van der Kolk appealed the MTCC decision before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Calbayog City (RTC). On October 22, 2007, counsel for Van der Kolk received the notice of the RTC Clerk of Court requiring her to file a memorandum on appeal within 15 days from such receipt or until November 6, 2007. On November 5, 2007, Atty. Tibo moved for additional time of 30 days from November 6, 2007 alleging that he could not seasonably file the said pleading due to heavy pressures of work. The appeal memorandum was filed only on November 21, 2007.15 On October 27, 2008, the Heirs of Yabao filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal,16 citing the failure of Van der Kolk to file the appeal memorandum within the 15-day reglementary period fixed under Section 7(b), Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, defendant-appellant’s appeal is hereby ordered DISMISSED.
Van der Kolk’s motion for reconsideration of the above order was denied by the RTC for lack of merit in its Order,19 dated August 24, 2009.
Unfazed, Van der Kolk filed a petition for review20 under Rule 42 before the CA on the following grounds: 1] the MTCC did not acquire jurisdiction over her person because the summons was served upon Ventures, a non-party to the case; 2] Remedios Chan was not authorized to institute Civil Case No. 1184 in representation of the Heirs of Yabao; 3] the MTCC gravely abused its discretion in declaring her in default and in granting the execution of the December 4, 2006 Decision pending its appeal; and 4] the RTC erred in dismissing her appeal.
Hence, We find merit in this petition albeit not on the grounds relied on by petitioner. We rule that the respondents were not able to sufficiently prove by competent evidence their entitlement over the lot in issue and, therefore, the judgments of the lower courts should be reversed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the August 29, 2008 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 10 in Civil Case No. CEB-30866 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Likewise, the Resolution/Decision of the MTCC dated December 4, 2006 and Order dated July 30, 2007 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. All other issuances relative to this case, including the writ of execution delivering possession to the plaintiffs-respondents are NULLIFIED. Civil Case No. 1184 is ordered DISMISSED for respondent’s FAILURE to prove by the required quantum of evidence their entitlement to Lot No. 2473, without prejudice to the refiling of another case involving the same parties and property.
The motion for reconsideration filed by the Heirs of Yabao was denied by the CA in its Resolution, dated May 2, 2013.
A. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRANTED THE RESPONDENT’S PETITION FOR REVIEW NOT BY PASSING UPON THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE SAID PETITION, BUT, BY RESOLVING TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO THE SAME ON THE BASIS OF GROUNDS PURPORTEDLY DISCLOSED BY THE RECORDS WHICH ARE EVEN INCONCLUSIVE AND HEARSAY.
B. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION, DID NOT COMMIT ANY ERROR, OR ACTED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, NOR GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE ORDINARY APPEAL FOR RESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO FILE HER MEMORANDUM ON APPEAL WITHIN THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD, BUT, WAS ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 7(b), RULE 40 OF THE RULES OF COURT.
C. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE RESOLUTION DECREEING RESPONDENTS (AS PLAINTIFFS) AS THE LAWFUL CO-OWNERS AND POSSESSORS OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT CASE.
It is the stance of the petitioners, Heirs of Yabao, that the findings and conclusions of the CA are not in accord with law and applicable jurisprudence. They aver that the CA erred in holding that the MTCC should have required them to present evidence ex parte to substantiate their claims because under Section 3 of Rule 9, when a defendant is declared in default, the court has the option to either proceed to render judgment granting the claimant such relief as his pleading may warrant or require the claimant to adduce his evidence ex parte. In this case, the petitioners contend that the MTCC, in the exercise of its discretion, selected the first option. They stress that the CA erred when it set aside the December 4, 2006 MTCC decision because the CA had no appellate jurisdiction over the MTCC and could not entertain a direct appeal from the said decision. They harp on the unjustified failure of the CA to rule on the correctness of the dismissal of the ordinary appeal taken by Van der Kolk before the RTC.
For instance, the Court has allowed the consideration of other grounds not raised or assigned as errors specifically in the following instances: (1) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter; (2) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within the contemplation of the law; (3) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interest of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice; (4) matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored; (5) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned; and (6) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question properly assigned is dependent.
In the case at bench, the Court agrees with the observation, analysis and conclusion of the CA. The several errors committed by the MTCC, which when taken collectively, justify the reversal of its December 4, 2006 Decision.
It is significant that the basis of respondents’ claim of ownership was a mere tax declaration that was supposedly in the name of their putative ancestor Paciano Yabao. However, a tax declaration is not a proof of ownership; it is not a conclusive evidence of ownership of real property. In the absence of actual, public, and adverse possession, the declaration of the land for tax purposes does not prove ownership. It can only be a strong indication of ownership if coupled with possession. In the case at bench, it was the petitioner who was in possession of the property and not the respondents. Consequently, the tax declaration, standing alone, is not an acceptable proof of ownership.
The Court also notes other flaws in the handling by the MTCC of the case.
Two. The MTCC should have admitted Van der Kolk’s answer, which was appended to her motion for allowance to belatedly file answer, filed on March 7, 2005 instead of declaring her in default. Record shows that the MTCC rendered the judgment of default only on December 4, 2006 and thus, it slept on Van der Kolk’s said motion for 1 year and nine months, just as it also slept on the petitioners’ motion to declare her in default for almost two years. This is procedurally unsound.
It is within the sound discretion of the trial court to permit the defendant to file his answer and to be heard on the merits even after the reglementary period for filing the answer expires.28 The rule is that the defendant's answer should be admitted where it is filed before a declaration of default and no prejudice is caused to the plaintiff.29 In this case, Van der Kolk filed the answer beyond the reglementary period but before she was declared in default, and there was no showing that she intended to delay the prompt disposition of the case. Consequently, her Answer should have been admitted.
* Per Special Order No. 1707, dated June 17, 2014.
** Designated Acting Member in view of the vacancy in the Third Division, per Special Order No. 1691, dated May 22, 2014.
*** Designated Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per Special Order No. 1704, dated June 17, 2014.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, with Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos and Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring; rollo pp. 40-54.
13 Penned by Judge Filemon A. Tandinco, Jr., id. at 74-77.
17 Penned by Judge Manuel F. Torrevillas; id at 68-73.
24 Manila International Airport Authority v. Rivera Village Lessee Association, Inc., 508 Phil. 354, 369 (2005).
26 Atienza v. De Castro, 538 Phil. 440, 450 (2006).
27 Tamondong v. Court of Appeals, 486 Phil. 729, 741 (2004).
28De Dios v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80491, August 12, 1992, 212 SCRA 519, 527.
29 Sablas v. Sablas, 553 Phil. 271, 276 (2007).
30Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. v. Hon. Romillo, Jr., 225 Phil. 397, 401 (1986).
31 San Pedro Cineplex Properties, Inc. v. Heirs of Enaño, G.R. No. 190754, November 17, 2010, 635SCRA 421, 425.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.