Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81709:gr-157445-2013&catid=1569&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:06:13+00:00

Document:
G.R. NO. 157445 - Segundina A. Galvez v. Sps. Honorio C. Montano and Susana P. Montano, et al.
SEGUNDINA A. GALVEZ, Petitioner, v.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES HONORIO C. MONTANO and SUSANA P. MONTANO and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Respondents.
The mere failure to attach copies of pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations should not cause. the outright dismissal of a petition for review. The allegations of the petition must be examined to determine the sufficiency of the attachments appended thereto.
The petitioner assails the dismissal by the Court of Appeals (CA) of her petition for review through the resolution promulgated on June 25, 20021 on the ground of her failure to attach to her petition "copies of pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations." She prays that the dismissal be set aside, and that the case be remanded to the CA for resolution of her appeal on the merits, unless the Court should find it convenient instead to decide her appeal itself.
On February 4, 2000, the MTC ruled in favor of the Montaños,7 holding that the sale by Eustacio to Jovita was merely voidable, not null and void; that because Segundina had not brought an action for the annulment of the sale within 10 years from the date of the transaction, as provided in Article 173 of the Civil Code, the sale remained valid; that Segundina did not establish that the foreclosure proceedings, auction sale, and the acquisition of the property by the Montaños were void; and that in view of the valid acquisition of the property by PNB during the foreclosure sale, the subsequent sale to the Montaños was also valid.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered by way of ordering defendant Segundina Galvez; (a) To vacate the property in question and to peacefully turn-over the possession thereof unto the plaintiffs; (b) To pay P5,000 as attorney's fees; (c) To pay plaintiffs a reasonable rental in the amount of P 100 per month being the prevailing rental rate in this locality to start from 1993 up to the date when the defendant actually vacate the premises; (d) and to pay the cost.
I. THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY TO JOVITA GALVEZ BY EUSTACIO GALVEZ NULL AND VOID AS IT WAS WITHOUT THE CONSENT AND KNOWLEDGE OF SEGUNDINA GALVEZ.
II. THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT PNB DID NOT ACQUIRE ANY RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY MORTGAGED BY JOVITA GALVEZ AS THE SALE FROM EUSTACIO GALVEZ TO JOVITA GALVEZ WAS IN THE FIRST PLACE NULL AND VOID.
IV. THAT THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE PUBLIC BIDDING VOID FOR BEING A VIOLATION OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE DEED OF MORTGAGE AND THE SALE AT PUBLIC AUCTION OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION OUTSIDE THE CAPITAL OF THE PROVINCE OF LEYTE WAS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT.
V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING THAT SINCE SEGUNDINA GALVEZ FAILED TO CAUSE THE ANNULMENT OF THE SALE MADE BY HER HUSBAND WHO ABANDONED HER WITHIN TEN YEARS FROM TRANSACTION PRESCRIPTION HAD SET IN.
VI. THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLARING PLAINTIFFS AS OWNERS AND ENTITLED TO POSSESS THE PROPERTY.
Thereafter, Segundina appealed to the CA by petition for review, docketed as C.A.-G.R. SP No. 71044 entitled Segundina A. Galvez v. Spouses Honorio C. Montano and Susana P. Montano and Philippine National Bank.
" be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition."
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition for review is hereby DISMISSED outright.
Segundina moved for the reconsideration of the resolution,13 arguing that it was within her judgment as petitioner to decide what documents, pleadings or portions of the records would support her petition; that her exercise of judgment was not a technical error that warranted the outright dismissal of her petition; that the rule requiring all pleadings and material portions of the records to be attached to the petition was an "absurd requirement"; and that attaching the pleadings and other portions of the record was not an indispensable requirement the non-compliance with which would cause the denial of the petition.
The motion is patently devoid of merit.
As a party raising exceptions to the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the February 4, 2000 Decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Babatngon, Leyte and the November 29, 2000 decision of Branch 34 of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City, petitioner is hardly in the proper position to adopt the brazen attitude that underlies the motion. She seeks the reversal of the lower court's determination of the parties' rights and yet, by her present stance, would have Us believe that the very decisions embodying the same are sufficient to serve as bases for the allowance of her petition. Needless to say, We find petitioner's impolitic justification of the shortcomings of her petition quite incomprehensible.
To Our mind, petitioner's obfuscation regarding what is required of her may be traceable to her misconstruction of the terms "pleading" and "material". While the latter term is concededly relative, a simple reference to Rule 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on "Kinds of Pleadings" would have effectively ruled out her unwarranted misgivings about reproducing the entire record and attaching the same to her petition. Given the cursory manner in which they are recounted in the petition, said attachments would have given Us a clearer and more complete background of the factual and procedural antecedents of the case.
"Section 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of the document which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof."
WHEREFORE, petitioner's motion for reconsideration is DENIED for patent lack of merit.
Aggrieved, Segundina has appealed to the Court.
1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT IMPOSED AN UNREASONABLE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL PLEADINGS FILED BEFORE THE LOWER COURTS SHOULD BE ATTACHED TO THE PETITION.
Section 2. Form and contents. The petition shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the specific material dates showing that it was filed on time; (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, the issues raised, the specification of errors of fact or law, or both, allegedly committed by the Regional Trial Court, and the reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the appeal; (d) be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition.
Section 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.
Considering that Segundina attached the certified true copies of the MTC decision dated February 4, 2000, the RTC decision dated November 29, 2000, and the RTC order dated April 22, 2002, the mandatory nature of the requirement of attaching clearly legible duplicate originals or certified true copies of the judgments or final orders is not in issue here. What is in issue was her failure to attach "the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition."
In Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz,27 a case where the petitioner did not attach to her petition for review a copy of the contract to sell that was at the center of controversy, the Court nonetheless found that there was a substantial compliance with the rule, considering that the petitioner had appended to the petition for review a certified copy of the decision of the MTC that contained a verbatim reproduction of the omitted contract.
The foregoing rulings show that the mere failure to attach copies of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition for review is not necessarily fatal as to warrant the outright denial of due course when the clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the RTC, and other attachments of the petition sufficiently substantiate the allegations.
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 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.
The guideposts, which equally apply to a petition for review filed in the CA under Rule 42,31 reflect that the significant determinant of the sufficiency of the attached documents is whether the accompanying documents support the allegations of the petition.
1. THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN NOT DECLARING AS NULL AND VOID THE SALE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BY EUSTACIO GALVEZ TO JOVITA GALVEZ, THE SAME BEING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF HIS WIFE, PETITIONER SEGUNDINA GALVEZ.
2. THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN NOT DECLARING AS NULL AND VOID THE SALE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BY EUSTACIO GALVEZ TO JOVITA GALVEZ, THE SAME BEING WITHOUT CONSIDERATION.
3. THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN NOT DECLARING AS NULL AND VOID THE AUCTION SALE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONDUCTED IN A PLACE OTHER THAN THE PLACE STIPULATED IN THE DEED OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE, I.E., THE CAPITOL OF THE PROVINCE OF LEYTE.
4. THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN DECLARING RESPONDENT PNB AS A BUYER IN GOOD FAITH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
5. THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN DECLARING RESPONDENT SPOUSES MONTANO AS BUYERS IN GOOD FAITH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
The Court considers the attachments of Segundina's petition for review (i.e., the certified true copies of the MTC decision dated February 4, 2000, the RTC decision dated November 29, 2000, and the RTC order dated April 22, 2002) already sufficient to enable the CA to pass upon her assigned errors and to resolve her appeal even without the pleadings and other portions of the records. To still deny due course to her petition for not attaching the complaint and the answer despite the MTC decision having substantially summarized their contents was to ignore the spirit and purpose of the requirement to give sufficient information to the CA. The Court reiterates what it has cautioned the CA in Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora33 not to be overzealous in its enforcement of the rules.
In its resolution denying Segundina's motion for reconsideration, the CA brushed aside her position of not needing to attach other portions of the records of the MTC and the RTC by reminding that she was the party who had raised "exceptions to the findings of fact and conclusions of law" by the MTC and the RTC.34 The CA's reminder was unfounded, however, considering that her petition focused only on questions of law, like the effects of the lack of her consent to the sale to Jovita, the want of consideration for that sale, and the conduct of the foreclosure sale in a place other than that stipulated in the deed of real estate mortgage. It was plain that she was not assailing the propriety of the findings of fact by the MTC and the RTC, but only the conclusions reached by said lower courts after their appreciation of the facts. In dealing with the questions of law, the CA could simply refer to the attached decisions of the MTC and the RTC.
Besides, even had the CA actually believed that_ the proper consideration of the petition for review would be requiring another look at the factual issues, it could still resolve such issues by relying on the accepted principle that the factual findings of the lower courts were entitled to great weight. Likewise, were a reference to the records of the trial court be held by the CA to be still necessary to settle any remaining doubt as to the propriety of the factual findings of the lower courts, the CA could have itself called upon Segundina to submit additional documents, or could have itself directed the clerk of court of the R TC to elevate the original records to enable it to make a complete adjudication of the case. Outright denial of due course under the circumstances contravened Segundina's right to be heard on her appeal, and constituted a gross error on the part of the CA.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for review on certiorari; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the assailed resolution promulgated on June 25, 2002 outrightly denying due course to the petition for review in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 71044 entitled Segundina A. Galvez v. Spouses Honoria C. Montano and Susana P. Montano and Philippine National Bank, and the resolution promulgated on February 6, 2003 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration; and REINSTATES C.A.-G.R. SP No. 71044, with instructions for the Court of Appeals to process and resolve the appeal with reasonable dispatch. Respondents are ordered to pay the costs of suit.

References: v. 

V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.